Riddle me this. Why does Jesus refer to Saducees as sons in the parable of Matthew 21: 28-32? Because these are PARABLES!
Who are the two sons in Matthew 21:28-32. Let me know.
I have explained this at least four times noe
The Prodigal Son examined
- Thread starter Macabeus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Riddle me this. Why does Jesus refer to Saducees as sons in the parable of Matthew 21: 28-32? Because these are PARABLES!
Who are the two sons in Matthew 21:28-32. Let me know.
I have explained this at least four times noe
Agreed,
Agreed,
Yes agreed, because the Publicans and sinners whom the prodigal represents were lost, unsaved till they came to Jesus
I already said lost, dead, unsaved people need to be saved the same way the Publicans and sinners IN OUR TEXT needed to be saved. Faith in Jesus
So we agree on this point. But I don't know where your saved, lost again, saved again is in this parable. I think that is absolutely's argument not mine.
So who does the prodigal son represent? And who does the elder son represent? Let me know.
It's hilarious that you and absolutely are coming from opposite extremes based on misinterpretation of the parable
Here I am stuck in the middle with an interpretation that uses context , (and basic rules of exegesid) to interpret the parable,
Ok, you can choose to believe that if you want, but the passage we are discussing says nothing of the sort
I'm just trying to get you guys to stop reading your traditions that are not in this parable into the parable. Sit down and read it in context and ask yourself the questions I provided a few posts ago. By my count, you only answer two
Hahahahaha, read Matthew 21:28-32, and then realize that everything I said is in conformity to Jesus' teaching.
Who are the TWO SONS in Matthew 21:28-32
None of your accusations are valid. I am doing none of the things you are saying. Jesus used the term SON in Matthew 21:28-32 to symbolize both Publicans and SADUCEES. Look it up.
Are they referred to as sons because they had a starting point of righteousness? Umm...nooooooo,. It's a parable, and parables are stories that express spiritual truth. And the stories use nonliteral symbols to tell a literal truth.
Absolutely, who are the two sons in the parable in Matthew 21: 28-32? If you answer this correctly, Andif you can show that Jesus is NOT referring to Publicans, harlots, and unbelieving religious leaders in HIS Parable of the two sons there, I will admit I'm wrong. Lay it on me.
also this is for anyone who wants to try to prove son in parables can only mean saved people
What is your point?
In the produgal we have no strict adherance to the emphasis of one son transposed onto pharisees.
You made that up.
You don't even realize one son represents harlots,one pharisees
In the produgal it is miles from that example.
You rush the meaning into your doctrine,and blow away the actual message.
2 completely different messages.
Again,you make up your own starting place. Thats why you missed it. One father had a son as harlot,the other as a Pharisee.
You think that is exactly like a father with 2 normal sons?
Now factor that in.
1. I am not basing anything on my doctrine. Just exegesis. 2. What horrible exegesis you have! Where in the PARABLE of Matthew 21 does it say one son was a harlot and the other a Pharisees? The parable says no such thing. You are conflating the interpretation with the parable itself. 3. You know that one son represents a harlot and the other Saducees and elders because of CONTEXT, the same way I know that the prodigal represents primarily the publicans and sinners and secondarily any sinner who comes to Jesus, and the elder represents primarily the scribes and Pharisees and secondarily any " religious person" who despise the little sheep who though sinful to the core find full and free justification in Jesus
you erroneously thought I was interpreting the parable to where it did not apply to modern Christians, an absurd, unfair and patently false charge seeing as I have explained it in the above manner more than once, you have made numerous exegetical blunders to the point where someone could take your posts and use them to argue for MULTIPLE REGENERATIONS, (do you want to know why? Ask me. And I doubt you read ANY of my posts beyond the first five words, for if you had, you would not have so badly misrepresented my words, I assume and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are honest.
And btw, the parable of the Prodigal son is at the very least referring to the Publicans and sinners in the immediete sense, (though not exclusively). You would have to wrestle them violently from their contextual and historical context to say otherwise
Perhaps you need to read the parables of Luke 15 with a view towards the actual context, instead of giving such a superficial reading
Good day and good night sir
Lol. Ok. Read the parable in Matthew 21 BY ITSELF, without the explanation Jesus gives and tell me where it says one son was a harlot and the other a Saducees or elder. It doesn't! You know that's what the two sons represented because of CONTEXT, not because the parable says that. ( It doesn't. The parable doesn't say that, the CONTEXT does. Just as the CONTEXT of the prodigal son clearly reveals what it means
As soon as you stopped ignoring context for Matthew 21, you rightly interpreted it. Now stop ignoring context for Luke 15 and rightly interpret it too
BTW saying my interpretation makes the parable irrelevant for modern readers is the most bizarre strawmen I've ever read, (and I've had heated discussions with Muslems, Pelagians, Unitarians, and atheists. Just because their is a primary and immediete application to a scripture(ie Publicans) does not preclude a secondary application
( ie you and I, we were prodigals too)
Be reasonable, man.
Far from it...
SETTJNG OF THE THREE PARABLES IN LUKE 15
15:1 Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man [a]receives sinners and eats with them.” 3 So He spoke this parable to them, saying:
I think the word "so" here means "for that reason".
We can read this text as saying...15:1 Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man [a]receives sinners and eats with them.” 3 FOR THIS REASON
He spoke this parable to them, saying: If you have the word "SO" meaning something else, let me know what it is...
The word "so" indicates purpose. ie purpose of the parable. Why did Jesus tell the parable? Because the Pharisees and scribes were complaining about Him eathing with publicans and sinners.
Here is what I said TWO POSTS before you said this...None of your accusations are valid. I am doing none of the things you are saying. Jesus used the term SON in Matthew 21:28-32 to symbolize both Publicans and SADUCEES. Look it up. Post 84-
15:1 Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man [a]receives sinners and eats with them.” 3 So He spoke this parable to them, saying:
Here's the parable in Matthew 21
28 “But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’ 29 He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went. 30 Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?”
Where does it say anything about one son being a Pharisee and one being a harlot?
Oh, it doesnt. 
That is not in the parable, IT IS IN THE CONTEXT IMMEDIETELY FOLLOWING, Just as the fact that one son in the prodigal son parable being a publican sinner and the other being Pharisee scribe is found in the CONTEXT IMMEDIETELY PRECEDING.
Here's a question, but please don't read this one without reading the two posts above it.
Absolutely, do you think the three parables (lost sheep, lost coin, and prodigal son) have one meaning and purpose, or three. I hold that they three have one purpose and meaning. It seems that you seperate the parable of the prodigal son from the other two parables, for what reason, I don't know why.
Absolutely, do you think the three parables (lost sheep, lost coin, and prodigal son) have one meaning and purpose, or three. I hold that they three have one purpose and meaning. It seems that you seperate the parable of the prodigal son from the other two parables, for what reason, I don't know why.
Not even close.
You are trying to create a narrative that doesn’t exist.
The sheep who wandered away and became lost was one of His sheep.
How can someone lose something that was not theirs in the first place.
The 100 sheep belong to the shepherd. These were justified ones.
Then one wandered away and became lost.
The lost one, was defined as a sinner, in need of repentance.
JLB
Yes one meaning.
God loves us even when we wander away from Him and become lost.
The lost must repent and be reconciled to their loving Father.
JLB
Marcelo believes that when Paul got the "new" message from heaven that God changed his mind about the "gospel" being to the jew only,that the " new gospel" of paul is radically different than the " gospel" to the jew.
THAT is why he sees things the way he does.
If you dont use his special looking glass,and filter EVERY BOOK of the bible through it,you are challenged even on no brainers.
Hence the prodigal can be no other than a vehicle for his one dimensional view.
IOW the only list of meanings for who the produgal can be is the one in his head,not the no brainer that "an outsider" like me sees with 100% clarity.
IOW, Jesus,under that 2 gospel template,has no ability to look past what Marcelo allows.
Jesus is confined to a limited exegesis.
Lol "multible regenerations"
The produgal never stopped being a son.
Your paranoia is in your mind,like just assuming the produgal is sinners or Pharisees or some other false transposition.
IOW WHAT HE REPRESENTS, is strangely, not only off the table,but an impossibility.
100% made up in your mind,through that 2 gospel template.
Pssssst,....... your solution lies outside your template,not in it
Even the sinner coming to God,and getting born again, is,in a sense,coming home.
No principle from heaven is one dimensional.
We make it one dimensional.
In personal revelation we see other applications or meanings.
My starting place is Jesus,not "gospels"
Ok read the next parable after the 2 sons in the vinyard in mat 21Far from it...
SETTJNG OF THE THREE PARABLES IN LUKE 15
15:1 Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man [a]receives sinners and eats with them.” 3 So He spoke this parable to them, saying:
I think the word "so" here means "for that reason".
We can read this text as saying...15:1 Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man [a]receives sinners and eats with them.” 3 FOR THIS REASON
If you have the word "SO" meaning something else, let me know what it is...
The word "so" indicates purpose. ie purpose of the parable. Why did Jesus tell the parable? Because the Pharisees and scribes were complaining about Him eathing with publicans and sinners.
None of your accusations are valid. I am doing none of the things you are saying. Jesus used the term SON in Matthew 21:28-32 to symbolize both Publicans and SADUCEES. Look it up. Post 84-
15:1 Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man [a]receives sinners and eats with them.” 3 So He spoke this parable to them, saying:
Here's the parable in Matthew 21
28 “But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’ 29 He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went. 30 Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?”
Where does it say anything about one son being a Pharisee and one being a harlot?
That next parable has jesus interpreting the parable in vs 42.
If your exegesis is applied,we can not accept the explanation sinse you prohibit that being possible in the previous parable.
Jesus says one son represents sinners one jewish leaders,in the vineyard.
You reject that........hmmmmm
The very next parable,in the same breath has the messiah rejected,and OTHERS, inheriting.
Ahem........ Gentiles!!!!!!!
2 parables in a row,about the gentile church.
Totally outside what you are transposing on to Jesus gospel.
If your exegesis is applied,we can not accept the explanation sinse you prohibit that being possible in the previous parable.
Jesus says one son represents sinners one jewish leaders,in the vineyard.
You reject that........hmmmmm
The very next parable,in the same breath has the messiah rejected,and OTHERS, inheriting.
Ahem........ Gentiles!!!!!!!
2 parables in a row,about the gentile church.
Totally outside what you are transposing on to Jesus gospel.
Well , nice job of TOTALLY ignoring Matthew 21:32. Go sit down and read THAT verse, where Jesus explains the parable.
Nice to know that Matthew 21:28-31 have nothing to do with Matthew 21:32 and that Luke 15:1 has nothing to do with the rest of the chapter.
So
Oh, cool exegetical principle. Did you bother to look at Matthew 21:32 which is the verse that actually explains the parable?
Maybe you should consider Matt 21:32 first?
Why don't you just read instead of trying to proof text. Let the Bible say what it says, don't use it to support your presups
Oh, cool exegetical principle. Did you bother to look at Matthew 21:32 which is the verse that actually explains the parable?
Maybe you should consider Matt 21:32 first?
Why don't you just read instead of trying to proof text. Let the Bible say what it says, don't use it to support your presups