An Unloving Unnecessary Monstrous Interpretation Of Matthew 7:13-14

JAG

Member

An Unloving Unnecessary Monstrous Interpretation Of Matthew 7:13-14
By JAG
May 30, 2021

Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that
leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and
narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Humans put forth their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 and their own
interpretation has consequences. Their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14
also tells us what they think God is like in His nature. The interpretation of
Matthew 7:13-14 presented by the three schools of Pessimistic Eschatology.
which are {1) Amillennialism (2) Premillennialism (3) Dispensationalism present
God as deliberately choosing to create a race of untold billions of His human
creatures knowing BEFORE He chose to create them that the majority of them
would spend an eternity screaming in agony in the pits of eternal Hell. And many
of these folks tell us not only will the majority of God's human creatures scream in Hell
for all eternity, but it will be the overwhelming vast majority that scream in agony in
Hell for all eternity. Then in the next breath they tell us that God is LOVE and full of
kindness and compassion.

My view is that their free-will-chosen interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 is wrong. It's
not right to do that. It's not a good thing to do that. It's a bad thing to interpret
Matthew 7:13-14 in such a way that portrays God as the kind of Being that
would create untold billions of human beings knowing BEFORE He created them that
the majority would end up screaming in agony in Hell for all eternity, but then knowing
that, went ahead and created them anyway, but this is exactly and precisely what their
interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 means and they cannot escape from this their
portrayal of the nature of God. Their interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 tells you,
that on their interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14, God has done exactly that and
that God is the kind of Being who would do that and that He actually has done that.

What is the solution to this? There is an alternative interpretation of Matthew
7:13-14 that is reasonable and it says Matthew 7:13-14 describes ONLY the very bad
spiritual conditions of the 1st century when Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 7:13-14
in that 1st century generation of Jews who ended up rejecting Him as their Savior and
ultimately murdered the innocent Lord Jesus. Indeed only a relatively few in that 1st
century generation, did find the Lord Jesus as their Savior. But that 1st century generation
is NOT representative of the entire human race and all future human generations, and
there is NOT a single Bible verse that says it is. So? So you don't have to believe that
it is representative. You can use your free will to choose NOT to believe that it is
representative of the entire human race. And in fact it is NOT representative of the
entire human race and all future generations.


So?

So the three schools of Pessimistic Eschatology {1) Amillennialism (2) Premillennialism
(3) Dispensationalism do NOT have to interpret Matthew7:13-14 as being historically
predictive of the future of the human race. They use their free will to choose to interpret
Matthew 7:13-14 that way ~~ and it's wrong to do that. It's not right. It's not a good
thing to do, to interpret Matthew 7:13-14 in such as way that presents God as being
the kind of Being that creates untold billions of human beings knowing BEFORE He
created them, that the majority of them would end up screaming in agony in Hell for
all eternity.

In this connection see also the OP in this thread:

JAG
 

Lon

Well-known member

An Unloving Unnecessary Monstrous Interpretation Of Matthew 7:13-14
By JAG
May 30, 2021

Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that
leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and
narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
So, your assumptions vs. mine, vs. another's? Or should we just read and grasp scripture WITHOUT assumptions first? 🤔
Humans put forth their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 and their own
interpretation has consequences. Their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14
also tells us what they think God is like in His nature. The interpretation of
Matthew 7:13-14 presented by the three schools of Pessimistic Eschatology.
which are {1) Amillennialism (2) Premillennialism (3) Dispensationalism present
God as deliberately choosing to create a race of untold billions of His human
creatures knowing BEFORE He chose to create them that the majority of them
would spend an eternity screaming in agony in the pits of eternal Hell. And many
of these folks tell us not only will the majority of God's human creatures scream in Hell
for all eternity, but it will be the overwhelming vast majority that scream in agony in
Hell for all eternity. Then in the next breath they tell us that God is LOVE and full of
kindness and compassion.
So let me see if I follow: All humans put forth their interpretations (including you), but only yours is not monstrous? 🤔

Your assumption: God is 'monstrous' for creating/letting man live, if most are condemned.

YOUR assumption is YOUR assumption. It doesn't mean you think straight for it. The rest of us have to weigh whether you've proved God is monstrous 'if.' I don't believe you've made that argument at this juncture. We'd only know, for whatever reason, that such an interpretation means few will be saved. Why? 1) many (most) assume it is their own choice. 2) many (most) believe God provided salvation for all who call upon the name of the Lord. Where then could 'monstrous' fit into either of these?
My view is that their free-will-chosen interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 is wrong. It's
not right to do that.
To do what? Interpret/try and understand?
It's not a good thing to do that. It's a bad thing to interpret
Matthew 7:13-14 in such a way that portrays God as the kind of Being that
would create untold billions of human beings knowing BEFORE He created them that
the majority would end up screaming in agony in Hell for all eternity
Wait, believe it or not, you are interpreting it that way. Granted you are attributing it to another, it if they don't believe it, then it is a strawman that came from your head 'wrong to think that way.' If it is supposed wrong for another, it should be wrong for you to think it for (of) another also.
but then knowing
that, went ahead and created them anyway, but this is exactly and precisely what their
interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 means and they cannot escape from this their
portrayal of the nature of God.
I just demonstrated two instances where your valuation is likely wrong in all cases, at least wrong in most cases.
Their interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 tells you,
that on their interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14, God has done exactly that and
that God is the kind of Being who would do that and that He actually has done that.
A bit awkward in sentence structures here...interpretation may not always embrace a full ramification of "what ifs" and generally doesn't miss many if it misses. On this, the solution is simply that God saves man and that man must come to the Cross, regardless of numbers. It makes those responding own their own rejections and choices.
What is the solution to this? There is an alternative interpretation of Matthew
7:13-14 that is reasonable and it says Matthew 7:13-14 describes ONLY the very bad
spiritual conditions of the 1st century when Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 7:13-14
in that 1st century generation of Jews who ended up rejecting Him as their Savior and
ultimately murdered the innocent Lord Jesus. Indeed only a relatively few in that 1st
century generation, did find the Lord Jesus as their Savior. But that 1st century generation
is NOT representative of the entire human race and all future human generations, and
there is NOT a single Bible verse that says it is.
🤔 I wonder sometimes if word studies are done before posting these 'not a single bible verse' are given. You are arguing already about at least one verse that says so, for instance.
Luke 13:23 And one said to Him, Lord, are the ones being saved few? And He said to them,
Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the narrow gate. For I say to you, many will seek to enter in and shall not be able.

It may very well be that the kingdom was always a remnant, thus 'few' could be considered as that of the Jews, but that's even different from your take.
So? So you don't have to believe that
it is representative. You can use your free will to choose NOT to believe that it is
representative of the entire human race. And in fact it is NOT representative of the
entire human race and all future generations.


So?
It isn't a 'freewill' decision. Facts just are what they are and 'belief' and 'freewill' isn't the primary need or concern. Rather, just state what scripture says or else we are just posting rationalizations.
So the three schools of Pessimistic Eschatology {1) Amillennialism (2) Premillennialism
(3) Dispensationalism do NOT have to interpret Matthew7:13-14 as being historically
predictive of the future of the human race. They use their free will to choose to interpret
Matthew 7:13-14 that way ~~ and it's wrong to do that. It's not right.
Has little to do with 'freewill' but rather trying to ascertain what God's Word is saying. It doesn't matter if you 'feel' it is not right 'with your freewill.' It rather matters if something is demonstrable. For this discussion, I'd think you could do a better job simply stating what you believe and asking questions about it.
It's not a good
thing to do, to interpret Matthew 7:13-14 in such as way that presents God as being
the kind of Being that creates untold billions of human beings knowing BEFORE He
created them, that the majority of them would end up screaming in agony in Hell for
all eternity.
Because JAG says so? Because all of Christianity agrees with you? God didn't 'create' even one being to perish.

You are nearly making a Universalist argument here: That God is unjust if even one person isn't saved. It is exactly their argument. It is nearly the same sentiment an argument: that God has to save everybody, Hitler, Pharaoh, Lenin.... else "He is monstrous."
In this connection see also the OP in this thread:

JAG
As to a 'multitude' I've no problem. "Multitude" doesn't mean majority. The larger point is to point out where your ideas become Universalism.
 

Derf

Well-known member
But that 1st century generation
is NOT representative of the entire human race and all future human generations,
It’s not? How many generations have had majorities or even pluralities of believers?

If you’re mainly talking about the Jews, I can see that the 1st century Jewish nation as a whole was not that interested in their Messiah. But I don’t know of other generations of Jews that were, either, whether before or after Christ came. I just can’t see how you’ve made any kind of case for your position, even though it has some merit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

JAG

Member
So, your assumptions vs. mine, vs. another's? Or should we just read and grasp scripture WITHOUT assumptions first? 🤔

So let me see if I follow: All humans put forth their interpretations (including you), but only yours is not monstrous? 🤔

Your assumption: God is 'monstrous' for creating/letting man live, if most are condemned.

YOUR assumption is YOUR assumption. It doesn't mean you think straight for it. The rest of us have to weigh whether you've proved God is monstrous 'if.' I don't believe you've made that argument at this juncture. We'd only know, for whatever reason, that such an interpretation means few will be saved. Why? 1) many (most) assume it is their own choice. 2) many (most) believe God provided salvation for all who call upon the name of the Lord. Where then could 'monstrous' fit into either of these?

To do what? Interpret/try and understand?

Wait, believe it or not, you are interpreting it that way. Granted you are attributing it to another, it if they don't believe it, then it is a strawman that came from your head 'wrong to think that way.' If it is supposed wrong for another, it should be wrong for you to think it for (of) another also.

I just demonstrated two instances where your valuation is likely wrong in all cases, at least wrong in most cases.

A bit awkward in sentence structures here...interpretation may not always embrace a full ramification of "what ifs" and generally doesn't miss many if it misses. On this, the solution is simply that God saves man and that man must come to the Cross, regardless of numbers. It makes those responding own their own rejections and choices.

🤔 I wonder sometimes if word studies are done before posting these 'not a single bible verse' are given. You are arguing already about at least one verse that says so, for instance.
Luke 13:23 And one said to Him, Lord, are the ones being saved few? And He said to them,
Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the narrow gate. For I say to you, many will seek to enter in and shall not be able.

It may very well be that the kingdom was always a remnant, thus 'few' could be considered as that of the Jews, but that's even different from your take.

It isn't a 'freewill' decision. Facts just are what they are and 'belief' and 'freewill' isn't the primary need or concern. Rather, just state what scripture says or else we are just posting rationalizations.

Has little to do with 'freewill' but rather trying to ascertain what God's Word is saying. It doesn't matter if you 'feel' it is not right 'with your freewill.' It rather matters if something is demonstrable. For this discussion, I'd think you could do a better job simply stating what you believe and asking questions about it.

Because JAG says so? Because all of Christianity agrees with you? God didn't 'create' even one being to perish.

You are nearly making a Universalist argument here: That God is unjust if even one person isn't saved. It is exactly their argument. It is nearly the same sentiment an argument: that God has to save everybody, Hitler, Pharaoh, Lenin.... else "He is monstrous."

As to a 'multitude' I've no problem. "Multitude" doesn't mean majority. The larger point is to point out where your ideas become Universalism.
Not a single word in your post up there refuted this:

JAG Wrote:
"Humans put forth their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 and their own
interpretation has consequences. Their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14
also tells us what they think God is like in His nature. The interpretation of
Matthew 7:13-14 presented by the three schools of Pessimistic Eschatology.
which are {1) Amillennialism (2) Premillennialism (3) Dispensationalism present
God as deliberately choosing to create a race of untold billions of His human
creatures knowing BEFORE He chose to create them that the majority of them
would spend an eternity screaming in agony in the pits of eternal Hell. And many
of these folks tell us not only will the majority of God's human creatures scream in Hell
for all eternity, but it will be the overwhelming vast majority that scream in agony in
Hell for all eternity. Then in the next breath they tell us that God is LOVE and full of
kindness and compassion."__JAG

I will stand pat on my OP.
Any responses I have to your post would be to repeat the points in the OP.

Best Regards.

JAG
 

Lon

Well-known member
Not a single word in your post up there refuted this:

JAG Wrote:
"Humans put forth their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 and their own
interpretation has consequences. Their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14
also tells us what they think God is like in His nature. The interpretation of
Matthew 7:13-14 presented by the three schools of Pessimistic Eschatology.
which are {1) Amillennialism (2) Premillennialism (3) Dispensationalism present
God as deliberately choosing to create a race of untold billions of His human
creatures knowing BEFORE He chose to create them that the majority of them
would spend an eternity screaming in agony in the pits of eternal Hell. And many
of these folks tell us not only will the majority of God's human creatures scream in Hell
for all eternity, but it will be the overwhelming vast majority that scream in agony in
Hell for all eternity. Then in the next breath they tell us that God is LOVE and full of
kindness and compassion."__JAG


I will stand pat on my OP.
Any responses I have to your post would be to repeat the points in the OP.

Best Regards.

JAG
Of course it did, whether you liked it or not. You have PLENTY of good minds in this thread telling you to shape up and learn some things. My addition? Hardly necessary. You will either choose to listen or you'll 'stand pat' with sub par theology of your choosing.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Incorrect.

JAG
Uhmm, No! I asked a lot of questions, for one thing. That you couldn't/didn't/wouldn't address them? Up for posterity of the thread.
Next, there is no rebuttal other than "I'm putting my fingers in my ears" from you.

You 'think' like a Universalist where God has to save everybody else He isn't good. That is complete rubbish. YOU, are not God. Fact.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member

An Unloving Unnecessary Monstrous Interpretation Of Matthew 7:13-14
By JAG
May 30, 2021

Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that
leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and
narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Humans put forth their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 and their own
interpretation has consequences. Their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14
also tells us what they think God is like in His nature. The interpretation of
Matthew 7:13-14 presented by the three schools of Pessimistic Eschatology.
which are {1) Amillennialism (2) Premillennialism (3) Dispensationalism present
God as deliberately choosing to create a race of untold billions of His human
creatures knowing BEFORE He chose to create them that the majority of them
would spend an eternity screaming in agony in the pits of eternal Hell. And many
of these folks tell us not only will the majority of God's human creatures scream in Hell
for all eternity, but it will be the overwhelming vast majority that scream in agony in
Hell for all eternity. Then in the next breath they tell us that God is LOVE and full of
kindness and compassion.

My view is that their free-will-chosen interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 is wrong. It's
not right to do that. It's not a good thing to do that. It's a bad thing to interpret
Matthew 7:13-14 in such a way that portrays God as the kind of Being that
would create untold billions of human beings knowing BEFORE He created them that
the majority would end up screaming in agony in Hell for all eternity, but then knowing
that, went ahead and created them anyway, but this is exactly and precisely what their
interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 means and they cannot escape from this their
portrayal of the nature of God. Their interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 tells you,
that on their interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14, God has done exactly that and
that God is the kind of Being who would do that and that He actually has done that.

What is the solution to this? There is an alternative interpretation of Matthew
7:13-14 that is reasonable and it says Matthew 7:13-14 describes ONLY the very bad
spiritual conditions of the 1st century when Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 7:13-14
in that 1st century generation of Jews who ended up rejecting Him as their Savior and
ultimately murdered the innocent Lord Jesus. Indeed only a relatively few in that 1st
century generation, did find the Lord Jesus as their Savior. But that 1st century generation
is NOT representative of the entire human race and all future human generations, and
there is NOT a single Bible verse that says it is. So? So you don't have to believe that
it is representative. You can use your free will to choose NOT to believe that it is
representative of the entire human race. And in fact it is NOT representative of the
entire human race and all future generations.


So?

So the three schools of Pessimistic Eschatology {1) Amillennialism (2) Premillennialism
(3) Dispensationalism do NOT have to interpret Matthew7:13-14 as being historically
predictive of the future of the human race. They use their free will to choose to interpret
Matthew 7:13-14 that way ~~ and it's wrong to do that. It's not right. It's not a good
thing to do, to interpret Matthew 7:13-14 in such as way that presents God as being
the kind of Being that creates untold billions of human beings knowing BEFORE He
created them, that the majority of them would end up screaming in agony in Hell for
all eternity.

In this connection see also the OP in this thread:

JAG
****shakes head in amazement****

So, to you a God who creates people with the ability to choose to worship Him or not worship Him is a monster. Yet you believe in a God who would torture people for an eternity for not accepting Him. Really? It takes a psychopath to do what you believe in. You believe a child who dies at 3 years old should be tortured for an eternity for not doing what that kid cannot really understand especially if raised in a non-Christian home.

Have some cognitive dissonance do you?
 

DAN P

Well-known member
Not a single word in your post up there refuted this:

JAG Wrote:
"Humans put forth their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 and their own
interpretation has consequences. Their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14
also tells us what they think God is like in His nature. The interpretation of
Matthew 7:13-14 presented by the three schools of Pessimistic Eschatology.
which are {1) Amillennialism (2) Premillennialism (3) Dispensationalism present
God as deliberately choosing to create a race of untold billions of His human
creatures knowing BEFORE He chose to create them that the majority of them
would spend an eternity screaming in agony in the pits of eternal Hell. And many
of these folks tell us not only will the majority of God's human creatures scream in Hell
for all eternity, but it will be the overwhelming vast majority that scream in agony in
Hell for all eternity. Then in the next breath they tell us that God is LOVE and full of
kindness and compassion."__JAG


I will stand pat on my OP.
Any responses I have to your post would be to repeat the points in the OP.

Best Regards.

JAG
And the BIGGEST FLAW is the CONTEXT .

#1 And verse 14 , and narrow is the way that leadeth unto to LIFE , and here Paul must be WRONG and Rom 10:9 and 10 and 1TIM 1:16 are to be Ignored ?

#2 IT / AUTOS , which is a PERSONAL POSSESSIVE PRONOUN which means it refers to thing that belong to a specific person .

#3 Matt 23:37 -39 explains the 1000 and more years , that Israel would not repent , and verse says that there house is left unto you , DESOLATE .

#4 And verse 39 Ye shall NOT SEE ME HENCHFORTH , till shall say , Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord .

#5 And Israel has been set aside for 2000 years as 2 Cor 3:10-18 and counting and that will not happen until the PAROUSIA / COMING of the Lord Jesus Christ , Rom 11:25 and 26 .

dan p
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member

An Unloving Unnecessary Monstrous Interpretation Of Matthew 7:13-14
By JAG
May 30, 2021

Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that
leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and
narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Humans put forth their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 and their own
interpretation has consequences. Their own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14
also tells us what they think God is like in His nature. The interpretation of
Matthew 7:13-14 presented by the three schools of Pessimistic Eschatology.
which are {1) Amillennialism (2) Premillennialism (3) Dispensationalism present
God as deliberately choosing to create a race of untold billions of His human
creatures knowing BEFORE He chose to create them that the majority of them
would spend an eternity screaming in agony in the pits of eternal Hell. And many
of these folks tell us not only will the majority of God's human creatures scream in Hell
for all eternity, but it will be the overwhelming vast majority that scream in agony in
Hell for all eternity. Then in the next breath they tell us that God is LOVE and full of
kindness and compassion.

My view is that their free-will-chosen interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 is wrong. It's
not right to do that. It's not a good thing to do that. It's a bad thing to interpret
Matthew 7:13-14 in such a way that portrays God as the kind of Being that
would create untold billions of human beings knowing BEFORE He created them that
the majority would end up screaming in agony in Hell for all eternity, but then knowing
that, went ahead and created them anyway, but this is exactly and precisely what their
interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 means and they cannot escape from this their
portrayal of the nature of God. Their interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 tells you,
that on their interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14, God has done exactly that and
that God is the kind of Being who would do that and that He actually has done that.

Just a brief question. Would it make a difference to your thinking if the torture weren't because they were being actively poked, proded and pierced by demonic entities (or some such thing) but if, rather, they couldn't stand being in the presence of a Holy God? That, in fact, hell is fiery because it speaks of the Presence of God to the unrepentant sinner? What if God's very Being is so unbearable to the unrepentant sinner that the torment is primarily because they abhor the God who loved them? At that point, their free will is no defense because they freely chose to reject Him. Or if you reject free will, then where is blame? Things are as they should be, right? Who are you even then to speak back to God?

Is it, then, really unloving for a Holy, Loving God to inflict His Presence upon sinners because they are deeply against Him? Should He rather say "I'm sorry, you don't need to put up with Me" and let them wander the Kingdom (wherein dwelleth righteousness) potentially inflicting THEIR wills on others?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon
Top