Dear Catholics: You know, 500 years ago Luther named your church Babylon and spoke of the papacy as the office of antichrist. Since then, the Catholic Church has insisted that this is not the case. Would you please stop doing things like hire unbelieving jews to head up your BIBLE STUDIES departments? Would you PLEASE stop proving us right for once?
Sincerely, a concerned Lutheran
Embed this noticeSuperLutheran (kicky half) (superlutheran@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 25-Jul-2026 21:51:38 JST
SuperLutheran (kicky half)1 And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, 2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.”’ 5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11 “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.” -Matthew 22:1-14
There is a growing heresy known as "full preterism." It states that the entirety of Biblical prophecy is fulfilled, including the Second Advent, Resurrection, new Creation, etc. How do they make that claim? They say that everything was completed in 70 A.D. with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, and that all the Resurrection language is just symbolism for believers being happy ghosts when they die. To the full preterist Jesus isn't coming back, sin is forever, and God's answer to the problem of evil is a firm "f*** you"... but they use logical-sounding historical arguments so people don't smell the stench.
The full preterist points to passages like this one. "See? The first wedding guests who didn't show up got their city burned, right there in the seventh verse! That is CLEARLY the 70 A.D. destruction, everything was finished!" They have a point, but not a good one. Yes, the seventh verse points to 70 A.D. Yes, the sixth verse just before it shows the martyrdom of the Apostles. But Jesus *distinguishes* that event from the wedding feast itself, negating their position.
You see my friends, the wedding feast is a symbol of fulfillment. The Son arrives to take His Bride and start something new: the wedding feast is nothing else than the Eschaton itself. Old Testament oracles concerning the arrival of Messiah include all sorts of end-times language, because the children of Judah were invited to participate with what the Messiah was going to do. Yet all those victorious prophecies speak of what *should* happen, what the people were *invited* to receive. But the jews rejected Jesus, just as more somber prophecies said (e.g., Isaiah 53). So the wedding feast is delayed.
In the meantime, after the city is destroyed, everyone is invited. Let me repeat, the wedding feast happens AFTER the destruction. This means the Messiah still has something to do, necessitating His Return. The prerequisite for this Return is the Gospel going out to the ends of the earth. And on the day when everyone is judged, those who do not clothe themselves in Christ's righteousness (failing to wear the wedding garments) shall be cast out. Those who believe will participate in the Resurrection.
Now, the full preterist is not only wrong, he is also in danger. If all were fulfilled, then there would be no wedding feast to be dressed for. Such people cannot be clothed in Christ's righteousness, and are thus unprepared for when Jesus comes back and judges them. My friends, I exhort you to avoid such a false teaching, for this is the very thing Jesus warns against in this passage!
He could easily make a million or two if he published his blog as a book. A bit of editing and it'd be golden.
Embed this noticeSuperLutheran (kicky half) (superlutheran@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 24-Jul-2026 22:03:00 JST
SuperLutheran (kicky half)33 “Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. 34 When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. 35 And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. 37 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ 39 And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41 They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? 43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. 44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. 46 And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet. -Matthew 21:33-46
Most of Jesus's parables were hard to understand, and this was by design (Matthew 13:12-14). Here however, Jesus gives one that is easily understood. The landlord is God, the vineyard is Judea, and the tenants are the religious authorities. The fruits they were supposed to sow are righteousness, charity and evangelism. The servants who are mistreated or killed are the prophets from the Old Testament, and the son of the landlord is Jesus Himself.
God established Israel by putting them in the Promised Land, giving them the Law to live by and show to the world. Israel responded by promptly apostatizing over and over again, her kings and priests being consistently unfaithful over the centuries. Once in a while there was a faithful leader like Josiah and Hezekiah, but their efforts for faithfulness were almost always undone by their replacements. So our Lord sent prophet after prophet to proclaim judgment, the need for repentance, and the coming Messiah to whom they should look. They were all persecuted in great measure by the authorities. Their descendants, the people Jesus is talking to in this passage, are continuing the trend; they will have Him crucified.
This rankles the Pharisees to whom Jesus speaks. Ironically, their sense of justice tells them that such tenants in the parable should be killed and replaced. Just like Nathan speaking to David and saying "you are the man" (2 Samuel 12:5-7), Christ tells these men that it will be as they have said, and they are the guilty party to be punished. Their place will be upbraided, their authority tarnished, and all that will be left is the Gospel - which will be held by the Gentiles as the stewards of the Word.
The priests and rabbis respond to this by... fulfilling exactly what Jesus said they would do. It is the clearest sign that they did not fear God nor worship Him, for they reflexively protect their institution - their place in the vineyard - instead of considering their faults.
Choice is the big thing in this matter. Heaven would be hell for people who don't want to be there, and believe me there are tons of people who would rather burn than be with God.
@King_Noticer@chud@BowsacNoodle@branman65 No man is a marionette except someone who has been possessed by a demon. Yet at the same time, we all make decisions according to our nature - whether that is a sinful, unregenerate nature or one that is purified and made new in Baptism.
@King_Noticer@chud@BowsacNoodle@branman65 Strictly speaking He out the call to faith in everyone when He wrote the Law in our hearts (Romans 2:15). But He elected those who He foresaw accepting the call of the Gospel and the offer of salvation. Still a bit of mystery there, but our Lord didn't force any of this one anyone
Happiness can kill you if you don't have discipline or wisdom. Joy is a worthless thing if you do not have the Scriptures tempering its excesses and giving you a true appreciation for God's blessings. This man had everything that worldly people want: great health, lots of money, a handsome appearance, fame and adulation, and access to all kinds of pleasure. He also had emotional contentedness, claiming all sorts of "mindfulness" practices. He still went nuts doing drugs and died.
In the previous chapter Jesus says that one must be as a little child to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 18:1-4). To illustrate His point , He put a child in front of the Apostles and pointed to the lad as an example of childlike dependence and faith. People saw this, and so now they begin to bring their children to Him for a blessing.
Why would these parents do that? Wasn't Christ's message enough? Certainly! Anyone who would be saved must rely on our Heavenly Father, believe what He says, and entrust themselves to Him for salvation while trying to obey. But to a parent hearing this, there must have been a terrible realization about one's child when hearing this.
The parents bring their children to Christ and ask Him to *pray* for them. Certainly they knew the proverb: "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6). Surely they knew that Solomon referred to the Law here and following God's righteous commands. Under the Old Covenant, if they were afraid for their child's life outcome, they could have just emphasized the Law some more. But then they heard that the Kingdom belongs to those with childlike faith.
So they ask Jesus to pray for their offspring. They know that, as a child grows up, his sinful nature grows with him. No amount of instruction in the Law can guarantee their salvation. Perhaps they can get the kid to behave *outwardly* when he grows up, but that does not reach his heart nor save his soul! The parents bring them to Jesus so as to ask Him, "Please Lord, let them trust. Give them a faith that remains as a child, so they belong to the Kingdom."
See how our Savior grants their request, even rebuffing the Apostles when they try to turn the parents away. By bringing their kids to Him, they show a great deal of childlike faith themselves, and it is this very faith which He rewards. We have heard "Jesus loves the little children," but now we see His compassion for parents as well, especially those parents who care for their offspring. Lord grant us parents today to have the same faith as these parents did back then, trusting that Jesus will do for our children as He has done for us.
He's well aware of my position. Heiser is a great theological sparring partner so I listen to a ton of his lectures, but nonetheless he's seriously flawed.
So like, the giving tree for old people. It's ok to say it, you think it was right for the guy to take and take from the tree and for the tree to give and give.
No, but I'm certainly not going to defend the idea that I have to give up all my hopes and dreams to pay for my kid's poor financial decisions. Parents should provide an inheritance and support where necessary, but they aren't stuck pigs getting bled out over the altar of youth. If the OP had that college debt for a women's studies major, would you still applaud the boomer dad for paying for it?