we are ALL PREDESTINED

[The Righterzpen]

30 translations all translated into

30 translation ehh.... (except for):
NIV, NLT, ESV, HCSB, ISV, NET, GOD's Word translation, Weymouth NT. All these say He "went to eat in" or "went to eat at". Matter of fact all translations say "when / went" (to eat) "at", "in"; not specifying that He actually made it all the way into the house.

What 30 translations are you talking about, because I've only found 24 translations?

Believe what you want. But I am done with this foolishness!

You're aware that at this point with your various denials of: possible word translations, denials of what the lexicons actually say and flat out lies about being a board certified mental health professional - you have absolutely lost all credibility!

So, if I were you; I'd be done with that foolishness too!

 

[nolidad]

30 translation ehh.... (except for):
NIV, NLT, ESV, HCSB, ISV, NET, GOD's Word translation, Weymouth NT. All these say He "went to eat in" or "went to eat at". Matter of fact all translations say "when / went" (to eat) "at", "in"; not specifying that He actually made it all the way into the house.

What 30 translations are you talking about, because I've only found 24 translations?

You strain at gnats- all those translations contradict your position and all say He went into or went into eat. Seriously I believe you smarter than that!

You're aware that at this point with your various denials of: possible word translations, denials of what the lexicons actually say and flat out lies about being a board certified mental health professional - you have absolutely lost all credibility!

So, if I were you; I'd be done with that foolishness too!

Well bearing false witness is a serious sin you just committed.

You need to learn how alternate readings come into play8- Get back to me when you have educated yourself a little.

 

[The Righterzpen]

You strain at gnats- all those translations contradict your position and all say He went into or went into eat. Seriously I believe you smarter than that!

All those translations do not say "into".

(So speaking of bearing false witness - again!)

Well bearing false witness is a serious sin you just committed.

You stated that you were a board certified mental health counselor who got your board certification from an organization that doesn't' even board certify mental health professionals. So right there; you lied!

You need to learn how alternate readings come into play8- Get back to me when you have educated yourself a little.

And how do "alternate readings" come in to play? The last thing you stated was that one had to have a Scriptural reason for utilizing an alternate reading. Yet you could not identify what that was? I'd stated I was using a Scriptural reason; comparing the Scripture to itself. And at that point; you accused me of having an agenda! And then you could not identify the agenda I allegedly have; and so therefore have no standing for saying my "agenda" (what ever that nameless agenda is - LOL) is "unbiblical".

So, you state that my interpretation of these passages is wrong; yet you have no valid reason to give me as to why that interpretation is wrong. All you do is insist that Jesus went into the house. Well..... why would He need to go into the house? What is your agenda in that? If there's no valid Scriptural reason why it can't be interpreted using the alternate readings; then why does it have to be interpreted your way?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If there's no valid Scriptural reason why it can't be interpreted using the alternate readings; then why does it have to be interpreted your way?

Perhaps 'translated' could be better used, instead of the more frequent mis-use of 'interpreted'....
since the Father in heaven simply gives the meaning, grants the understanding, freely to little children,
and says in His Word that His Word, His Prophecy, IS NOT to be 'interpreted'. (men love to think they can interpret it, being so 'smart', but unless the Father grants the understanding from Heaven, as written, they cannot receive/understand/ it.) When the Father grants the understanding, His Own Meaning, His Way, then no interpretation is required nor should be used.

 

[nolidad]

All those translations do not say "into".

(So speaking of bearing false witness - again!)

You stated that you were a board certified mental health counselor who got your board certification from an organization that doesn't' even board certify mental health professionals. So right there; you lied!

NACC certifies Christian Counselors- so there you bore false witness. Excuse it is an N not an A (AACC is courses I took after I was certified by NACC sorry for the mixup)

No but all those translations say Jesus went into the house to eat!!!! That is your big issue you spent pages trying to defend against! And even the word "to" connotes he went into the house to eat dinner. Your obstinance in such a clear unambiguous passage is truly perplexing!

 

[nolidad]

And how do "alternate readings" come in to play? The last thing you stated was that one had to have a Scriptural reason for utilizing an alternate reading. Yet you could not identify what that was? I'd stated I was using a Scriptural reason; comparing the Scripture to itself. And at that point; you accused me of having an agenda! And then you could not identify the agenda I allegedly have; and so therefore have no standing for saying my "agenda" (what ever that nameless agenda is - LOL) is "unbiblical".

So, you state that my interpretation of these passages is wrong; yet you have no valid reason to give me as to why that interpretation is wrong. All you do is insist that Jesus went into the house. Well..... why would He need to go into the house? What is your agenda in that? If there's no valid Scriptural reason why it can't be interpreted using the alternate readings; then why does it have to be interpreted your way?

Yes, there has to be a compelling reason either in direct context, of doctrine or other compulsion to go to an alternative use of the word! Other wise if the "standard" definition which in this case simple means Jesus went into the pHarisees house- and that remains true even if the word "to" is used, unless efurther explanation shows one did not enter. Jesus is Lord of Grammar as well and He does not lend confusions!

I gave you the reasons why your explanation is wrong and why the accepted biblical usage is correct!

Jesus was bidden to come to eat- He went "to" the house to sit at meat! He commented on how trhe Pharisees loved choosing certain seats.

Luke 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.

Unless people did not have homes- Everyone naturally understands that if Jesus went "to" a house to eat bread-He went in the house!

"3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?"

YOu would require Jesus to be outside and having to shout this question in!

"7 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them."

Now you would have Jesus going around teh house peeking in from room to room, to be able to discern this and giving the pharisees who were bidden having to shout it from outside!

"
12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.

13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:

14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God."

Verse 12 Jesus was invited to this dinner inside!

Verse 15 someone who was eating with Jesus made a statement.

If from all that internal evidence you can still think Jesus did not go into th ehouse- there is nothing more I can do to help you!

YOu need to learn Basic grammar before trying to parse other languages.

Go have 100 hundred random people read this and ask them without comment if they think Jesus went into the house of the pharisee to eat!

what is my agenda?? To help you understand SCripture better!

 

[The Righterzpen]

NACC certifies Christian Counselors- so there you bore false witness. Excuse it is an N not an A (AACC is courses I took after I was certified by NACC sorry for the mixup)

NACC - National Association of Catholic Chaplins?

They board certify chaplins for their organization. That's not the same thing as being certified as a mental health practitioner by the state you live in. Mental health practitioners certified by their state, receive a license to practice in that state. (Sometimes one can transfer their license to another state if they move.)

Being licensed by the state is what I'm talking about when I say "board certified". Being certified by the NACC would not license you with the state. If you had certain types of Masters in the field of psychology you could be licensed by your state as a mental health counselor. But the Masters would have to be in the mental health field. Something like a Masters in religious studies would not qualify to take the state boards.

The NACC does require the undergraduate school to be state accredited; but does not make that distinction (at least on their website) for the graduate school. Which is another requirement for state licensing. One would have to have gotten their graduate degree from a state accredited institution. Now there are religious colleges with graduate programs that are state accredited. Having attended state accredited schools, opens more doors for advancements and lateral moves, both within and outside of religious organizations.

As per state legalities for clergy? I believe the only intersecting area is in who can officiate and sign a marriage license. The cleric has to be ordained by a state recognized religious organization. Death certificates have to be issued by a medical doctor or county coroner.

So, thank you for clearing up what you mean by board certified.

I questioned your credentials because you know so little about sexual abuse victims and statistics. What I went through is not particularly rare; unfortunately. State accredited mental health professionals usually have at least one graduate level course that addresses sexual abuse. Several of my general undergraduate counseling courses addressed the issue. Sexual abuse is a major "environmental factor" in mental health; as is substance abuse.

 

[The Righterzpen]

No but all those translations say Jesus went into the house to eat!!!! That is your big issue you spent pages trying to defend against! And even the word "to" connotes he went into the house to eat dinner. Your obstinance in such a clear unambiguous passage is truly perplexing!

Unless people did not have homes- Everyone naturally understands that if Jesus went "to" a house to eat bread-He went in the house!

Do you concede that someone can actually head to a location and not actually arrive?

Yes, there has to be a compelling reason either in direct context, of doctrine or other compulsion to go to an alternative use of the word!

Compelling reason; having to do with doctrine! Yes! I pointed this out once already.

If you look at the parables Jesus spoke. The first one was about a wedding. In the context He was speaking of; the "guest of honor" would have been the bridegroom. Theologically, He is the bridegroom.

And they certainly were not giving Him the seat of honor, now were they? And we know that by the context of what He says to them. He says not to take the high seats because when the guest of honor (the bridegroom) comes; they are not ashamed. If they be honored by the guest of honor (the bridegroom) they be advanced by that guest's directive; not their own directive.

Jesus was bidden to come to eat- He went "to" the house to sit at meat! He commented on how trhe Pharisees loved choosing certain seats.

So Jesus is taking note as by their advancement of their own self importance. The text mentioned the rooms they enter into. This obviously is a multi-room house that most likely has entrances for different "levels" of folks. You would know what room they were attaining to by the entrance they went in.

Now were they telling Jesus to come in the front door; the entrance of the greatest honor? Probably not, seeing how they deemed themselves to be much more important than Him.

So yes, Jesus could have very well been standing in the front yard (or even in the street) and observing this behavior not actually being in the house.

Now theological application! This is God Incarnate / the Messiah who is suppose to be the Bridegroom of this nation. Yet they do not give Him the honor due. Do you think God would accept a lesser position under their satanic system? (On top of the fact that He knew these people wanted to kill Him!) Do you really think Jesus would go in there and subjugate Himself to the position they assign Him? He knows who and what they are. He calls the children of Satan.

Nicodemus snuck out in the middle of the night to meet Jesus to basically tell Him; we know you are the Messiah, no one could do what you do if God was not with him.

So here we have a group of people who know they are dealing with God incarnate and what point has God ever subjected Himself to the desire of sinners to reign over Him?

The crucifixion was Christ subjugating Himself to the wrath of God to atone for sin. And note; the Romans, who were the appointed authority to execute Jesus, didn't want to!

The "invite" to this chief pharisee's house was just another version of the temptation in the wilderness. Jesus went to the house to see what would happen.

"3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?"

YOu would require Jesus to be outside and having to shout this question in!

Jesus would not have to shout anything if some of these pharisees and lawyers are outside too. Remember, someone had to walk from the house to invite Him.

"7 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them."

Now you would have Jesus going around teh house peeking in from room to room, to be able to discern this and giving the pharisees who were bidden having to shout it from outside!

And how would Jesus observe this from outside; basically by what entrances they headed to; based on how important they believed themselves to be.

12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.

Now this parable makes perfect contextual sense if everyone is still outside and in the presence of those not invited.

15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God."

As I pointed out before; if you take a close look at the Greek of this verse, you will see that this conversation is not taking place within close proximity of each other. This chief pharisee was too full of pride and self importance to come out and speak to Jesus directly.

 

[nolidad]

NACC - National Association of Catholic Chaplins?

They board certify chaplins for their organization. That's not the same thing as being certified as a mental health practitioner by the state you live in. Mental health practitioners certified by their state, receive a license to practice in that state. (Sometimes one can transfer their license to another state if they move.)

Being licensed by the state is what I'm talking about when I say "board certified". Being certified by the NACC would not license you with the state. If you had certain types of Masters in the field of psychology you could be licensed by your state as a mental health counselor. But the Masters would have to be in the mental health field. Something like a Masters in religious studies would not qualify to take the state boards.

The NACC does require the undergraduate school to be state accredited; but does not make that distinction (at least on their website) for the graduate school. Which is another requirement for state licensing. One would have to have gotten their graduate degree from a state accredited institution. Now there are religious colleges with graduate programs that are state accredited. Having attended state accredited schools, opens more doors for advancements and lateral moves, both within and outside of religious organizations.

As per state legalities for clergy? I believe the only intersecting area is in who can officiate and sign a marriage license. The cleric has to be ordained by a state recognized religious organization. Death certificates have to be issued by a medical doctor or county coroner.

So, thank you for clearing up what you mean by board certified.

I questioned your credentials because you know so little about sexual abuse victims and statistics. What I went through is not particularly rare; unfortunately. State accredited mental health professionals usually have at least one graduate level course that addresses sexual abuse. Several of my general undergraduate counseling courses addressed the issue. Sexual abuse is a major "environmental factor" in mental health; as is substance abuse.

Wrong again , but keep googling- you are sure to stumble across it!

YOu can question my certification all you wish! I know whom certified me and the work I have done over 25 years!

 

[nolidad]

Do you concede that someone can actually head to a location and not actually arrive?

Yes but teh simple, clear language of this passage precludes that from being the case in luke 14.

Compelling reason; having to do with doctrine! Yes! I pointed this out once already.

If you look at the parables Jesus spoke. The first one was about a wedding. In the context He was speaking of; the "guest of honor" would have been the bridegroom. Theologically, He is the bridegroom.

And they certainly were not giving Him the seat of honor, now were they? And we know that by the context of what He says to them. He says not to take the high seats because when the guest of honor (the bridegroom) comes; they are not ashamed. If they be honored by the guest of honor (the bridegroom) they be advanced by that guest's directive; not their own directive.

And you show complete ignorance as to why Jesus was invited to dinner IN the pharisees house!
And you ifgnore what the passage say8s where Jesus is, unless you say the whole dinner took place outside!

Jesus would not have to shout anything if some of these pharisees and lawyers are outside too. Remember, someone had to walk from the house to invite Him.

Another supposition added to other suppositions! The passage shows He is sitting at meat with the pharisees! Why are you so insistent in getting this passage to say something it doesn't? This is 2nd grade stuff really.

Luke 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.

Luke 14:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.

So now you have a gang of teh invited sitting outside to eat? There were no picnic tables back then.

Jesus would not have to shout anything if some of these pharisees and lawyers are outside too. Remember, someone had to walk from the house to invite Him.

So show it that this was the case and stop making things up!

And how would Jesus observe this from outside; basically by what entrances they headed to; based on how important they believed themselves to be.

No you need to learn architecture of Israel in the first century! There were no special entrances- unless you are busy making up something else again !

Now this parable makes perfect contextual sense if everyone is still outside and in the presence of those not invited.

Only to you! But thankfully we can know for certain who this parable was addressed to :

7 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them.

HE SPOKE THIS TO THE OTHER GUESTS IN THE HOUSE WHO ALSO WERE INVITED!



Oncve again what reason do you have to butcher a clear and so easy passage of Scripture?????

 

[nolidad]

Now theological application! This is God Incarnate / the Messiah who is suppose to be the Bridegroom of this nation. Yet they do not give Him the honor due. Do you think God would accept a lesser position under their satanic system? (On top of the fact that He knew these people wanted to kill Him!) Do you really think Jesus would go in there and subjugate Himself to the position they assign Him? He knows who and what they are. He calls the children of Satan.

So now you are drawing conclusions based on your own feelings.

Do you think God the Son would allow Himself to be condemned in a kangaroo court that violated thirty Jewish laws to condemn HIm??? But He did.

You now make Jesus some puffed up God who wouldn't go into a house of a sinner! Scriptures show you are wrong!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Wrong again , but keep googling- you are sure to stumble across it!

Yet, you won't come out and say it specifically (then you keep changing your story) Seems fishy to me?

And you show complete ignorance as to why Jesus was invited to dinner IN the pharisees house!

You say He was invited so they could check and see if He actually was the Messiah; (because they did that to everyone) but..... they already knew that! We know they knew that because of what Nicodemus said to Him.

Oncve again what reason do you have to butcher a clear and so easy passage of Scripture?????

As much reason as you have to butcher the English language..... I guess? Besides, I thought you were done with these conversations?

So now you are drawing conclusions based on your own feelings.

Nope, conclusions drawn out of the Scripture. None of what I've said is not theologically sound.

Do you think God the Son would allow Himself to be condemned in a kangaroo court that violated thirty Jewish laws to condemn HIm??? But He did.

Explained this already.

You now make Jesus some puffed up God who wouldn't go into a house of a sinner! Scriptures show you are wrong!

He went into other pharisees' houses on other occasions. He just didn't go into this pharisee's house.

So..... what is your point in continuing to argue about this? Do you think you are going to convince me?

 

[nolidad]

Yet, you won't come out and say it specifically (then you keep changing your story) Seems fishy to me?

Well given your lack of understanding of basic grammar and context- I am not surprised. But as you have borne false witness against me- I am in no rush. Maybe if you had the manners to simply ask (though I did make a mistake in saying it was AACC when it is NACC) , maybe I would have gladly told you. Instead you rushed to judgment.

You say He was invited so they could check and see if He actually was the Messiah; (because they did that to everyone) but..... they already knew that! We know they knew that because of what Nicodemus said to Him.

Well
1. NO they did not do that to everyone!
2. It wasn't to see if He was the Messiah.
3. NO they were not convinced He was messiah!
4. Nicodemus had his conversation at night and in private. These were most likely skeptics given the-context.

As much reason as you have to butcher the English language..... I guess? Besides, I thought you were done with these conversations?

YOu guessed wrong!

Nope, conclusions drawn out of the Scripture. None of what I've said is not theologically sound.

A double negative= apositive! There is no theology here. It is you simply trying to defend something the context doesn't allow with guesses and more guesses about what may have happened. and then using hypothetical s that are correct but completely ungermaine to the context of this passage!

He went into other pharisees' houses on other occasions. He just didn't go into this pharisee's house.

So..... what is your point in continuing to argue about this? Do you think you are going to convince me?

Yeah they set up a picnic table for HIm and he was able to see inside a house with maybe one window and possibly two doors and see how all th eguests were lining up in th efavored positions- just so you can so that into could also be read to (which means he went into a house as well as not going into the house the rest of the context determines if he went in or not- and th econtext says he went in)

But as a board certified counselor I have been extremely piqued by your insistence on holding onto something that is contextually impossible. it is a fascinating and humorous thing to see you flop around with all sorts of hypotheticals when if you showed this to 100 people without your opinions, would all tell you Jesus went in!

Try it with ten without commenting, just ask them!

 

[The Righterzpen]

and then using hypothetical s that are correct but completely ungermaine to the context of this passage!

LOL - and you admit it after all! There's absolutely no theological argument you can produce that proves I'm wrong. Then if "showed to 100 people without (my) opinion". (Why; because if they read my opinion they might say: "Yeah, I guess she's got a point.")

Which only says to me that you are personally suffering from way too much pride to concede that what I say is actually plausible! So that's on you dude. And yeah those 100 people can see that too!

A double negative= apositive! There is no theology here.

Yeah, good for you! A double negative is a positive! You must have learned that one in counselor school! If nothing I said is not theologically sound? That means everything I've said is theologically sound!

You get accolades from me for you're being an English grammar Nazi; to hang on your office wall with all the other accolades you claim to have!

4. Nicodemus had his conversation at night and in private. These were most likely skeptics given the-context.

Dude, go back and read the passage. You missed it big time! What did Nicodemus say to Jesus? (Nicodemus who was a member of the Sanhedrin.)

John 3:2
"The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

Who's "we". Nicodemus and his shadow?

But as a board certified counselor I have been extremely piqued by your insistence on holding onto something that is contextually impossible.

Yeah, and I'll just sit here and giggle about you trying to figure this out; you who think you're so much smarter than I am; or probably your perception of anyone else for that matter.

Let me hear your "professional" counselor opinion. It should be worth a good laugh! Here's a big fancy psych term for ya: narcissism!

So what does NACC (Not Actually Christian Counselors) really mean than; (not that I care - I still think you're a liar!)

Well given your lack of understanding of basic grammar and context- I am not surprised. But as you have borne false witness against me- I am in no rush. Maybe if you had the manners to simply ask (though I did make a mistake in saying it was AACC when it is NACC) , maybe I would have gladly told you. Instead you rushed to judgment.



Well
1. NO they did not do that to everyone!
2. It wasn't to see if He was the Messiah.
3. NO they were not convinced He was messiah!
4. Nicodemus had his conversation at night and in private. These were most likely skeptics given the-context.



YOu guessed wrong!



A double negative= apositive! There is no theology here. It is you simply trying to defend something the context doesn't allow with guesses and more guesses about what may have happened. and then using hypothetical s that are correct but completely ungermaine to the context of this passage!



Yeah they set up a picnic table for HIm and he was able to see inside a house with maybe one window and possibly two doors and see how all th eguests were lining up in th efavored positions- just so you can so that into could also be read to (which means he went into a house as well as not going into the house the rest of the context determines if he went in or not- and th econtext says he went in)

But as a board certified counselor I have been extremely piqued by your insistence on holding onto something that is contextually impossible. it is a fascinating and humorous thing to see you flop around with all sorts of hypotheticals when if you showed this to 100 people without your opinions, would all tell you Jesus went in!

Try it with ten without commenting, just ask them!

Ya know dude (after all) what ever you wanna believe about yourself and the world.

I've decided I'm done with your foolishness!

Good bye!

 

[nolidad]

LOL - and you admit it after all! There's absolutely no theological argument you can produce that proves I'm wrong. Then if "showed to 100 people without (my) opinion". (Why; because if they read my opinion they might say: "Yeah, I guess she's got a point.")

Which only says to me that you are personally suffering from way too much pride to concede that what I say is actually plausible! So that's on you dude. And yeah those 100 people can see that too!

Well let me clarify. Your points are correct according to grammar- but not according to context.

If allwe had was that Jesus went into(to) the house- then there is room for question as to whether he went in. But given the rest of the passage- you have to keep adding assumptions that are not there to get Jesus to not be in the house, when the grammar and context shows He went into th ehouse!

And there is no theology in this debate. Just whether Jesus went into a house. The theology is whether or not you believe we have to hate people in a narrow definition in order to be a disciple.

But ask people to reads the passage and ask them if Jesus went into the house! I am more than confident they (if they have basic understanding of grammar) will agree with your assertion that requires secondary and tertiary assumptions .

Which only says to me that you are personally suffering from way too much pride to concede that what I say is actually plausible! So that's on you dude. And yeah those 100 people can see that too!

Oh I can freely admit that your scenario is plausible if the context did not define that He went in. YOu on the other hand have to add so many assumptions found no where to get Jesus to stay outside. Even to the point that you have Jesus peeking into doors that would not exist in a 1st century jewish pharisees house!

Yeah, good for you! A double negative is a positive! You must have learned that one in counselor school! If nothing I said is not theologically sound? That means everything I've said is theologically sound!

Well nothing so far you said about Jesus going to ta house Her was invited to is theologically sound!

Being snide and catty is very unbecoming of you!

Dude, go back and read the passage. You missed it big time! What did Nicodemus say to Jesus? (Nicodemus who was a member of the Sanhedrin.)

John 3:2
"The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

Who's "we". Nicodemus and his shadow?

Well my bad. I should have clarified that Nicodemus met privately with Jesus, but in Luke 14 there were many pharisees who were skeptics, in th econtext of the passage. See I am not afraid to correct my errors!

It is not about what is plausible or what you think is theological or what may be possible or even what may be grammatical. Those are all valid points and rules- but what matters is what is the context?

Luke 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.

7 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them.

Chief rooms is protoklisia which means favored place at table . So Jesus was watching how all the pharisees were trying to grab the choice seats at table.

Sol let us look at these two passages and add your assumptions.

verse1: YOu allege Jesus did not go inside but stayed outside and I guess you believer some pharisees stayed outside with Him so they could watch Him (continue their investigation)

Proof? Your belief that Jesus would not stoop so low as to enter into a house of someone who hated Him.

Verse 7: You allege that Jesus spoke this parable to the crowds who you say were following with Him and were outside the house of the Pharisee with Jesus.

But the text itself says Jesus spoke the parable to those invited to the pharisees house. Not to any crowd that may or may not have been there.

Luke 14:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.

You allege this is a pharisee that is outside eating with Jesus. As Jews did not have tables and chairs- this would be them sitting on the ground eating in front of all those crowds that may or may not have been there. Proof?

YOu keep adding stuff that is not there that you are simply thinking is between the lines without any evidence from Gods' Word.

Once again all of your grammatical points are correct points- but they do not apply to this verse at all. For the context shows He was eating with the invitees!

Yeah, and I'll just sit here and giggle about you trying to figure this out; you who think you're so much smarter than I am; or probably your perception of anyone else for that matter.

Let me hear your "professional" counselor opinion. It should be worth a good laugh! Here's a big fancy psych term for ya: narcissism!

So what does NACC (Not Actually Christian Counselors) really mean than; (not that I care - I still think you're a liar!)

Bitterness is unbecoming of you.

But no it doesn't stand for that either! Keep googling- it is out there!

Wow you were able to make that diagnosis without being a psychologist nor sitting down with me and spending time with me, nor asking me questions- but simply making assertions! That is truly amazing!

As I said, it matters not a whit if you think I am a liar or not! If your perception of me is like your approach to Gods' Word, then I take it as a badge of honor!

 

[nolidad]

Well as Righterezxpen wishes nothing more to do with me- I guess it is safe to show this now.

I graduated Bible College with a Bachelors. My major was theology and I had a minor in Counseling.
Several years later I took a two year intensive satellite course given by the National Association of Christian Counselors.

NACC – National Association of Christian Counselors

After succesfully passing the training and meeting all requirements and testing- I was board certified to be a Christian Counselor.

This does not mean I am state licensed as a LSW or state certified counselor. I am certified and trained to offer counseling from a biblical perspective. I cannot open an office as a Licensed counselor in GFeneral Practice. But I can open shop within a church or para church organization and advertise as a Board Certified Christian Counselor. There is a large difference.

 

[roman2819]

God's chosen (i.e. elect) are all those who meet His conditions of repentance and faith in Christ. The Bible never speaks about God choosing individuals before the foundation of the world to heaven or hell. What God chose before the foundation of the world was His gracious and appropriate plan to send His Son to redeem sinners to Himself and restore them to His image. All who meet the conditions to partake in this plan are chosen (i.e. elect) due to their faithful identification with THE Chosen One, Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:4-11 "4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. 11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul"

John 3:17-20 "17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."

John 3:35-36 "35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

Yes you got it right in the first half: "The Bible never speaks about God choosing individuals ... What God chose before the foundation of the world was His gracious and appropriate plan to send His Son to redeem sinners to Himself and restore them to His image". However, I cannot quite agree that "All who meet the conditions to partake in this plan are chosen (i.e. elect) ..."

If we interpret Bible in context, God did not choose individuals to redeem, as some people erroneously claimed. Ephesians chapter 1,2,3 explain predestination in 70 verses: It is corporate predestination, which means God offered redemption to Jews first, and then the Gentiles -- which together means everyone. God offers to redeem all, but in the context of the Scripture, each one must decide whether to repent and turn to Him. Predestination is so misunderstood because people are so awed by words such as "He predestine us" and fail to see context.

Ephesians was written to Gentile Christians. Speaking as a Jew, Paul identified with his people by using the adverb 'we' and 'us' to say how God first chose the Jews:

[Eph 1:4-11] just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ... having been predestined according to the plan of him …. (12) in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, ...(13).. Weren't the Jews the first to hope in Jesus?

Then when referring to the Gentiles, the apostle used the adverb "you" and "you who were Gentiles":

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth …... Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and “uncircumcised” ….. excluded from citizenship in Israel… (Eph 2:13) ..... For He... has made the two groups one... His purpose was... in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross… (3:18)... This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ."

Before Jesus atonement, the Gentiles did not have access to Jehovah. But after Christ’s atonement, both Jews and Gentiles have access to God. This move has been pre-planned or predestined by God. Predestination just means to pre-plan something. More important is what did God pre-plan?

We know that initially Israel was the chosen people of God. After Christ's atonement, the apostles initially thought that God chose to save the Jews only. After Peter's vision, however, the Gentiles were allowed to believe too. But as more Gentile Christians started to outnumber the Jewish believers, the Jews resented it and insisted that Gentiles should observe Sabbath and circumcision. Jews also claimed that God had suddenly decided to offer redemption to the Gentiles after Israel rejected Jesus, implying that Gentiles were less favored. Refuting such allegation, Paul said that God does not show favoritism between the circumcised and uncircumcised [Galatians 2:6].

In Ephesians, the apostle refers to Gentiles as the Elect [Eph 1], thus placing them on equal footing as the Jews (who are chosen). Elect or chosen is a status, it does not mean being chosen to be saved individually.

In the beginning -- before the foundation of earth -- God chose the Jews, but now the Gentiles are also part of the Elect. "Before the foundation of the earth" just means "initially". It is unfortunate that some people are so awed by the words "before foundation of the earth" and "predestination" because they do not interpret in context.

In Romans 9:11, God said He loves Jacob and hate Esau. God was referring to these 2 persons only, specifically, so how does this extend to chosen - and not being chosen - of everyone else? How does Romans 9:11 become a blanket statement ??? Seriously.

In Romans, Paul as a Jew saluted Israel's heritage, but he went on to say the new order is here, things have changed, get used to it.

Romans 9:18-23: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth .... " While the Jews were shocked that God offered redemption to Gentiles, Paul said that God could choose to have mercy on Gentiles. It does NOT mean that God has mercy on some particular individuals and choose them. In the larger context of the Scripture, each one has to decide to repent and turn to God.

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son... He who predestined, He also justifies" [Romans 8:29] means that God foreknew that He would offer redemption to the Gentiles. Although they used to be considered uncleaned by the Jews, however, after Christ's atonement, the Gentiles can choose to be conformed to Christ. They are also justified by faith in Jesus.

Also, take note that Jesus during his ministry never spoke about God chose individuals to be redeemed.

When seen in context, Scripture interprets Scripture well, by itself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If we interpret Bible in context, God did not choose individuals to redeem

God's desire is for everyone to be redeemed. David tells us that He writes the book of our life at conception. Not everyone follow His plan and purpose for them. "Your eyes saw my unformed body; all my days were written in Your book and ordained for me before one of them came to be. How precious to me are Your thoughts, O God, how vast is their sum!" (Psalm 139:16,17) Not everyone follows His plan for them. If they did everyone would be redeemed. The Devil wants to destroy, God wants to give us life: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10)

This is very easy so a child can understand. God is good, God is life, health & healing. The devil is bad, he represents death, sickness, misery and so on.

 

[nolidad]

Yes you got it right in the first half: "The Bible never speaks about God choosing individuals ... What God chose before the foundation of the world was His gracious and appropriate plan to send His Son to redeem sinners to Himself and restore them to His image". However, I cannot quite agree that "All who meet the conditions to partake in this plan are chosen (i.e. elect) ..."

If we interpret Bible in context, God did not choose individuals to redeem, as some people erroneously claimed. Ephesians chapter 1,2,3 explain predestination in 70 verses: It is corporate predestination, which means God offered redemption to Jews first, and then the Gentiles -- which together means everyone. God offers to redeem all, but in the context of the Scripture, each one must decide whether to repent and turn to Him. Predestination is so misunderstood because people are so awed by words such as "He predestine us" and fail to see context.

Ephesians was written to Gentile Christians. Speaking as a Jew, Paul identified with his people by using the adverb 'we' and 'us' to say how God first chose the Jews:

[Eph 1:4-11] just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ... having been predestined according to the plan of him …. (12) in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, ...(13).. Weren't the Jews the first to hope in Jesus?

Then when referring to the Gentiles, the apostle used the adverb "you" and "you who were Gentiles":

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth …... Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and “uncircumcised” ….. excluded from citizenship in Israel… (Eph 2:13) ..... For He... has made the two groups one... His purpose was... in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross… (3:18)... This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ."

Before Jesus atonement, the Gentiles did not have access to Jehovah. But after Christ’s atonement, both Jews and Gentiles have access to God. This move has been pre-planned or predestined by God. Predestination just means to pre-plan something. More important is what did God pre-plan?

We know that initially Israel was the chosen people of God. After Christ's atonement, the apostles initially thought that God chose to save the Jews only. After Peter's vision, however, the Gentiles were allowed to believe too. But as more Gentile Christians started to outnumber the Jewish believers, the Jews resented it and insisted that Gentiles should observe Sabbath and circumcision. Jews also claimed that God had suddenly decided to offer redemption to the Gentiles after Israel rejected Jesus, implying that Gentiles were less favored. Refuting such allegation, Paul said that God does not show favoritism between the circumcised and uncircumcised [Galatians 2:6].

In Ephesians, the apostle refers to Gentiles as the Elect [Eph 1], thus placing them on equal footing as the Jews (who are chosen). Elect or chosen is a status, it does not mean being chosen to be saved individually.

In the beginning -- before the foundation of earth -- God chose the Jews, but now the Gentiles are also part of the Elect. "Before the foundation of the earth" just means "initially". It is unfortunate that some people are so awed by the words "before foundation of the earth" and "predestination" because they do not interpret in context.

In Romans 9:11, God said He loves Jacob and hate Esau. God was referring to these 2 persons only, specifically, so how does this extend to chosen - and not being chosen - of everyone else? How does Romans 9:11 become a blanket statement ??? Seriously.

In Romans, Paul as a Jew saluted Israel's heritage, but he went on to say the new order is here, things have changed, get used to it.

Romans 9:18-23: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth .... " While the Jews were shocked that God offered redemption to Gentiles, Paul said that God could choose to have mercy on Gentiles. It does NOT mean that God has mercy on some particular individuals and choose them. In the larger context of the Scripture, each one has to decide to repent and turn to God.

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son... He who predestined, He also justifies" [Romans 8:29] means that God foreknew that He would offer redemption to the Gentiles. Although they used to be considered uncleaned by the Jews, however, after Christ's atonement, the Gentiles can choose to be conformed to Christ. They are also justified by faith in Jesus.

Also, take note that Jesus during his ministry never spoke about God chose individuals to be redeemed.

When seen in context, Scripture interprets Scripture well, by itself.

YOu err.

Romans 8 verses on predesatination and foreknowledge is in the singular- so it refers to individuals and not to plans

Ephesians 1 is 1st person plural which means it was individuals chosen and not gentiles or Jews!

Both passages refer to peoples as individuals and nor races like Jews or gentiles.

 

[nolidad]

God's desire is for everyone to be redeemed. David tells us that He writes the book of our life at conception. Not everyone follow His plan and purpose for them. "Your eyes saw my unformed body; all my days were written in Your book and ordained for me before one of them came to be. How precious to me are Your thoughts, O God, how vast is their sum!" (Psalm 139:16,17) Not everyone follows His plan for them. If they did everyone would be redeemed. The Devil wants to destroy, God wants to give us life: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10)

This is very easy so a child can understand. God is good, God is life, health & healing. The devil is bad, he represents death, sickness, misery and so on.

God wishes for all to be saved- but everyone is born condemned and he opts not to save the many!

Romans 9:

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,