You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

[shag]

Originally Posted by mfblume

As we continue without character assassination, lol, do you believe COMETH in Matt 21:40 refers to that judgment you agree was sent to Jerusalem?

Matthew 21:40 KJV When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

...Even if you do not believe Matt 24:3 is that coming?

bump for Bro. Epley

I believe according to your theory, (IF I understand your past "race" theory accurrately) that if He would continue to judge a Jewish race, like thru Hitlers dispicable murders, then Hitler's murders would have to have been a "coming" of the Lord according to verse 40, right? because in :45 the chief priests and pharisees KNEW they were speaking of judgement upon THEM.

Another option, it had to be a coming of the Lord in judgement on that particular generation back then, when Jesus said "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Anyway, please comment on what Bro. Blume posted concerning vs. 40 & 45.




any comments Bro. Jason?

[Steve Epley]

[QUOTE=shag;757818]bump for Bro. Epley

I believe according to your theory, (IF I understand your past "race" theory accurrately) that if He would continue to judge a Jewish race, like thru Hitlers dispicable murders, then Hitler's murders would have to have be a "coming" of the Lord according to verse 40, right? because in :45 the chief priests and pharisees KNEW they were speaking of judgement upon THEM.

Another option, it had to be a coming of the Lord in judgement on that particular generation back then, when Jesus said "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Anyway, please comment on what Bro. Blume posted concerning vs. 40 & 45.




Honestly after reading the passage it may or may not be speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD since it is a parable it is open for interpetation. I can see where Elder Blume might come to this conclusion however I do not think judgment is finished with the Jewish people as yet?

[shag]

If in vs:45 they understood Him to be speaking of THEM, how then is it possible that He NOT be speaking of the ad70 judgment on THEM? ( parable, but not open for multiple interpretations)

[Jason B]

Shag, I believe that judgment was for the first century Jews.

Also, while I'm not quite following the logic of equating "race" for "generation"-I do most certainly believe that there are still Jews on this earth, and that God has been in the process of regathering them, and dealing with them, which will be completed at the time that Jesus returns. I don't find much reason for believing that the holocaust has much (if any at all) connection to Matthew 21:40. And I certainly would not be willing to say that Jesus came back during world war 2 in judgment of the Jews, that would be ludicris.

PS-(A note to the FP's) See Shag asked a question, I answered His question. He may or may not agree, but I would be willing to bet he won't bump the question 4 more times demanding that I never answered. This is why I get burned out dealing with some posters.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Jason

Shag, I believe that judgment was for the first century Jews.

Also, while I'm not quite following the logic of equating "race" for "generation"-I do most certainly believe that there are still Jews on this earth, and that God has been in the process of regathering them, and dealing with them, which will be completed at the time that Jesus returns. I don't find much reason for believing that the holocaust has much (if any at all) connection to Matthew 21:40. And I certainly would not be willing to say that Jesus came back during world war 2 in judgment of the Jews, that would be ludicris.

PS-(A note to the FP's) See Shag asked a question, I answered His question. He may or may not agree, but I would be willing to bet he won't bump the question 4 more times demanding that I never answered. This is why I get burned out dealing with some posters.

But Jason, you never answered the question Bro. Benincasa asked you. And THAT same question has been asked you MORE than 4 times. So, how about it, will you finally answer what he is asking you? He is only asking you WHAT YOU SAID.

[shag]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Eld. Epley, you are forever making claims that you cannot substanciate. Let me make this easy for you. Here is the verse Shag asked you about and the Strong's definitions for both "THIS" and "GENERATION":

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

This: G3778
οὗτος, οὗτοι, αὕτη, αὕται
houtos houtoi hautē hautai
hoo'-tos, hoo'-toy, how'-tay, how'-tahee
Including the nominative masculine plural (second form), nominative feminine signular (third form), and the nominate feminine plural, (fourth form). From the article G3588 and G846; the he (she or it), that is, this or that (often with the article repeated): - he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

Generation: G1074
γενεά
genea
ghen-eh-ah'
From (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication an age (the period or the persons): - age, generation, nation, time.

Eld. Epley, please explain where the Bible says these words mean "RACE" as you claim.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

NATION thus race.

Bro. Jason, thanks for replying, and once will be suffecient. The lowdown on the race issue is, Epley believes generation means race in Matt. 24. TK gave a strongs for "generation" there. Epley believes that "race" means the same as "nation", as is 1 word listed as a possibility under the def. of "generation" G1074 that TK posted. Thereby, Epley sees the judgement of the Jews happening every since Jesus' days on earth, upon the jewish race. That is why I posed the question concerning Hitler. Matt. 21 refers to His judgement as a coming, so, if one believes as does Epley(I think) that Hitler's murders was a judgement of God on the Jews, then according to Matt. 21: 40 it was a coming of the Lord, and we all know that is not the case. Thereby leaving the one other option, in which I posted.

Originally Posted by Jason

Shag, I believe that judgment was for the first century Jews.

Also, while I'm not quite following the logic of equating "race" for "generation"-I do most certainly believe that there are still Jews on this earth, and that God has been in the process of regathering them, and dealing with them, which will be completed at the time that Jesus returns. I don't find much reason for believing that the holocaust has much (if any at all) connection to Matthew 21:40. And I certainly would not be willing to say that Jesus came back during world war 2 in judgment of the Jews, that would be ludicris.

PS-(A note to the FP's) See Shag asked a question, I answered His question. He may or may not agree, but I would be willing to bet he won't bump the question 4 more times demanding that I never answered. This is why I get burned out dealing with some posters.

The point that is being made is, in Matt. 21:40, Jesus said the judgement would be a coming of the Lord. The chief priests and pharisees KNEW Jesus was speaking of THEM receiving the judgement according to vs: 45. That said we know that the pharisees listening would receive the judgement in which Jesus did in fact call a coming. You brethren both admit that the ad70 event was a judgement on them. So, according to verse 40, that leaves no options except to receive that ths ad70 judgment was a coming of the Lord according to scripture(;40), otherwise there was no judgement in ad70 at all on the pharisees that comprehended what Jesus said, and we all know that is not the case either.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by shag

If in vs:45 they understood Him to be speaking of THEM, how then is it possible that He NOT be speaking of the ad70 judgment on THEM? ( parable, but not open for multiple interpretations)

Shad all the NT was speaking to them listening however those promises and pronouncements did not end with the living audience He was addressing. I think the narrowing of the passage to ONLY be speaking to those alive at the time is dangereous. The Campbellites do that concerning the HGB. Am I making sense?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by shag

Bro. Jason, thanks for replying, and once will be suffecient. The lowdown on the race issue is, Epley believes generation means race in Matt. 24. TK gave a strongs for "generation" there. Epley believes that "race" means the same as "nation", as is 1 word listed as a possibility under the def. of "generation" G1074 that TK posted. Thereby, Epley sees the judgement of the Jews happening every since Jesus' days on earth, upon the jewish race. That is why I posed the question concerning Hitler. Matt. 21 refers to His judgement as a coming, so, if one believes as does Epley(I think) that Hitler's murders was a judgement of God on the Jews, then according to Matt. 21: 40 it was a coming of the Lord, and we all know that is not the case. Thereby leaving the one other option, in which I posted.










The point that is being made is, in Matt. 21:40, Jesus said the judgement would be a coming of the Lord. The chief priests and pharisees KNEW Jesus was speaking of THEM receiving the judgement according to vs: 45. That said we know that the pharisees listening would receive the judgement in which Jesus did in fact call a coming. You brethren both admit that the ad70 event was a judgement on them. So, according to verse 40, that leaves no options except to receive that ths ad70 judgment was a coming of the Lord according to scripture(;40), otherwise there was no judgement in ad70 at all on the pharisees that comprehended what Jesus said, and we all know that is not the case either.

Shag have you read different scholars concerning the use of the word 'generation' I am NOT alone. Burks OWN definition included nation thus race in the broadest sense. Yes I picked one but so did he.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Shag have you read different scholars concerning the use of the word 'generation' I am NOT alone. Burks OWN definition included nation thus race in the broadest sense. Yes I picked one but so did he.

Eld. Epley, is a nation the same thing as a race? Are you saying that American citzens are a "race" of Americans?

[shag]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Shad all the NT was speaking to them listening however those promises and pronouncements did not end with the living audience He was addressing. I think the narrowing of the passage to ONLY be speaking to those alive at the time is dangereous. The Campbellites do that concerning the HGB. Am I making sense?

If the judgement did not end with them in that generation (their lifetime), then according to Matt. 21 :40, every time the jewish race(per your view) has received a judgment on them in the last 2000 years because of their "race", then it was also a coming of the Lord, per vs.40. Thats not the case.

As far as the cambellites, I assume youre speaking of the bunch that followed Allexander Cambpell, and now makes up the church of Christ. I understand where youre coming from. If we say that you come behind in no gift waiting for the coming of the Lord, 1 cor.1:7, the gifts could stop after his coming if it was in ad70. I dont see the gifts stopping, but rather making sure the gifts are being used especially while waiting for the coming. They miss the Spirit promise being for ALL that are afar off that the Lord calls as well. They also must think Ananias was an apostle(j/k) since he laid his hands on Paul that he would receive his sight....
I think i see your angle, if you admit there was a coming, then you have to give up the Holyghost as being only for that generation. I dont see it that way. Please address vs. 40 and the coming, as to how it was not a coming to the pharisees in ad 70, tho.