Evidence for God from Science

rstrats wrote:Canuckster1127,

re: “They [the parables] were still to be understood by those he spoke to at the time.”

That is true, but there is no scripture that says that the Messiah spoke in parables so that His message could be better understood. Scripture only gives two reasons: the first mentioned above and the second to fulfill Psalms 78:2.

The scripture doesn't say a lot of things about how it is to be understood or interpretted. Each applies the best undertanding and interpretation that one can and in the midst of it you depend upon the Holy Spirit to give guidance. In the case of parables, Jesus didn't invent them. They were common interpreative tools used in other literature of the day (although nowhere near as well recorded and know today as are Christs). Literary forms (or oral forms preserved in literature) tie to the people and culture in which they were told and when you look at the cases where Jesus himself interpretted his parables to others when asked it's clear they aren't complex allegories with a meaning attached to every element.

Canuckster1127,

re: “The scripture doesn't say a lot of things about how it is to be understood or interpretted.”


OK - Just so you don’t state as fact something that is merely your opinion about what the Bible would say about an issue if it were to include it as scripture.

rstrats wrote:Canuckster1127,

re: “The scripture doesn't say a lot of things about how it is to be understood or interpretted.”


OK - Just so you don’t state as fact something that is merely your opinion about what the Bible would say about an issue if it were to include it as scripture.

Fact and opinion are often stated without clarifying in every instance, which is which. If it makes it easier for you, you are welcome to assume anything I state is my opinion, unless of course you agree with it, in which case it is no doubt, fact.

For what it's worth, for all observing and reading my posts (which aren't as frequent lately as what they used to be), I have a tendency to state things which quite obviously are my opinion and are subject to examination and which people of good faith and intent can disagree with. I often tend to do this in Biblical matters and in part this is a result of my background and training in Biblical Literature, as well as my past training as an ordained pastor in an evangelical denomination. I also am a heavy reader and maintain a heavy reading regimen that includes theology. I am one of the top reviewers on Amazon.com and Amazon.ca as I review most of what I read.

Everyone tends to be most generous when judging themselves and that no doubt includes me. I think I'm better than most in terms of clarifying when appropriate what my opinion is on something and I'm usually quite willing to hear what other's have to say on a subject and attempt to understand things from their perspective. Theology is an area in which there can be multiple understandings on many issues, depending upon which tradition you use to approach it, and even within similar traditions there can be different methodologies employed.

My comment with regard to Parables being interpretted as illustrative stories of which there is one primary point intended by the teller and the supporting elements may or may not be intended to stand on their own to make points. That's more than just my opinion. That's how I was trained in Biblical Literature and Hermeneutics to approach parables based upon the best Biblical Literature methods in the materials that I've been exposed to in the area of Literary Form criticism. This includes materials from authors such as Bruce Metzger, NT Wright, John Stott and historically from such early studies as were introduced by Westcott and Hort, when this field of approach was established. So, while it's my opinion certainly, it's hardly just that. It's a representation of some strong background and training and it represents some strong traditions in arriving at that opinion.

There are other traditions in approach that take issue with that opinion. Eastern Orthodoxy for example, tends to take a more mystical and allegorical approach. This is true of some early church fathers too. In fact, if you want an example of what allegorization can do to a passage, google Augustine's interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritanr. It's a hoot and much of the interpretation is well outside anything that Jesus would have been saying to his original audience.

Parables tend to be a literary form that presents some special challenges. Because of the "hooks" within the story it's particularly easy to look at all the elements present and because there is a level of ambiguity brought about by there not always being more than one primary point to draw, it becomes very easy to take those elements and hang whatever else you want on it. As a general rule, interpretting a parable should pay close attention to where Jesus was when he gave it, to whom he was speaking and any other information as to what else he said at that time. Parable are often given in groups and have a common theme which helps to avoid the temptation to read in more than was intended by Christ.

Just because something is applicable or seems convenient to illustrate a point, doesn't mean that that is an appropriate use of that passage. If a teaching is based on a parable and there is no other support for that teaching within the Scriptures, then that can be a very suspect foundation.

So anyway, there it is. That's the background to my opinion and why I gave it. If others want to challenge that or introduce their opinions that's very welcome and I'm glad to listen too. I'm still learning and just because I was trained a certain way doesn't mean it's the best or right way in every instance. I'm completely capable of changing my mind or adjusting my approach and have done so many times in my life when there's good reason to do it.

Murray wrote:My Pastors Response

Hi Ryan,

This particular verse is a challenge to interpret. It almost seems “tacked on” to the end of the Parable, but still a part of the Parable. Of course the Parable itself is about using our gifts, talents, resources in a way that benefits others and blesses God. The implication is that there is coming a day when we will be held accountable for how we use what we have. But I think this particular verse you mention is reminding us that those who completely reject Jesus and choose to do evil rather than good, will also have a day of accountability.

It is not that Jesus wants to kill those who oppose him, it is that those who intentionally choose to do evil and seek to harm or destroy what God is doing will one day face the consequences of their choices.

It is a difficult truth for us to hear and appreciate, but it is a theme found several places in the New Testament.

Mark Miller

Let me add the following to what your wise pastor said as he is correct:

The important thing is context (as Bart says) and second is wisdom of how prophecy is worded in illustrations. I will place the context of Luke 19:17 which begins in verse 12 in order and then add the details which explain that this is a prophetic illustration or truth Jesus is bring to the forefront, first to the Jewish people and then to all Gentiles and future believers in Christ....

Luke 19:12 - Therefore He said: "A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return.

Please note Acts 1:9, and Revelation 1:7. Psalms 72:1-20 -- Shed Light on this as does Psalms 2 as well as Psalms 22:27, 28, 29, 30, 31c.

Luke 19:13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, 'Do business till I come.'

Matthew 28:19-20, Luke 24:47-48, Acts 1:6, 7, 8

Luke 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We will not have this man to reign over us.'

Luke 19:15 "And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

Regarding his return note: Revelation 19:15, 1 Corinthians 12:4 and Matthew 13:47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52c.

Next, RegardingTrading: Trading what for what - might be what is mentioned in Gal 5:22. 23, 24, 25,26c and Gal 5:19, 20, 21c

Also Please Note: Col 3:23, 24, 25c, "And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. 25 But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality."

And then note Matthew 7:22, 23c…

Now read…

Luke 19:16 Then came the first, saying, 'Master, your mina has earned ten minas.'
Luke 19:17 And he said to him, 'Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.'
Luke 19:18 And the second came, saying, 'Master, your mina has earned five minas.'
Luke 19:19 Likewise he said to him, 'You also be over five cities.'
Luke 19:20 "Then another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief.
Luke 19:21 For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.'
Luke 19:22 And he said to him, 'Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow.
Luke 19:23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?'
Luke 19:24 "And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.'
Luke 19:25 (But they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas.')
Luke 19:26 'For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.

And Note - 2 Corinthians 5:10, 11, 12c, and Revelation 22:12 and Psalms 110: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7c. After reading these verses - see the verse in question in Luke:

Luke 19:27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.' "

Psalms 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12c, helps to shed light on verse 27 of Luke.

Luke 19 verse 27 may have a double meaning referring to all those who reject Christ when He comes to punishes all the earth and finally after the Great White Throne Judgment.

Revelation 20:6 and note Revelation 20:11, 12, 13, 14, 15c as well…

Note it states those enemies and it is because of the enemies attitude that the ruler was so harsh and appears austere… There comes a day of reckoning.

However, look how austere? Really??? – God who sent his Son to carry on His will to shed blood/die in our place so that we can be made free again (John 8:36) – who so loved the world of humanity that He died in our place so we can live, become transformed out of darkness into his marvelous light and people hate him because of that so much that they refuse him who speaks from heaven to redeem freely a lost despiteful world?

What do you do with such people who despise God’s love & grace, abuse it for their own ends? Let them in heaven – NO – why they would corrupt it (Isaiah 26:10). There comes a day of reckoning… (Matthew 13:47, 48, 49, 50, 51c). How far have we fallen away from God’s love affecting us positively and how far did God come to remove the hindrance? Austere – NO – it is we (collectively) who are austere toward one another and God...

Now, we need to decide if Romans 6:1 means this: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” Yes We Can!.

...Or does it mean what Romans 6:2 says: “Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”

Most often, in our modern Churches Romans 6:1 is taught as – ‘Yes we can’ – but did Paul?

Grace teaches us how to say no (deny) sin (Titus 2:11,12, 13, 14, 15c) and John explained the teaching process of Grace in 1 John 1:8, 9, 10 and 1 John 2:1, 5, 15, 16c…

People are so fearful of the abuses of the twisted out of context doctrine – sinless perfectionism – that Romans 6:1 is now taught as – “Yes we Can!” The doctrine of sinless perfectionism is incorrect but the shedding of single besetting sins one sin at a time is correct and it indeed works. It may take years to overcome or days, or seconds, but Grace teaches us what? How to Love would be the answer and what prevents us from loving is to be removed. After all the fruit of the Spirit is:

Gal 5:22-26, But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

What is removed by process is discussed in context so please note – Gal 5:19,20,21c

Regarding comment Jesus made about putting deposit in the Bank

When you put a deposit in the bank, a saving account, it draws a little change and that is all the Lord requires – him working, aiding you to make a little change (shedding sin) but if a person loves sin more than progressing to make a little change – who does that one love more? Sin or the Lord who sent the Holy Spirit to help make the slightest change by his grace alone working within a person? Now, does that person really trust the Lord himself to make change or not? So I ask all of us, which kind of servant/son/daughter are ye?

Aside note: The Hebrew use of the word Son comes from the basic Root meaning – to flow through – continue through – to continue to build and carry on… Therefore, as adopted sons and daughters of God are we continuing to build and carry on the Lord’s work (building fruits of the Spirit) wherever we have been assigned in life – to our families, friends, churches?

Does Romans 6:1 mean to you – Yes We Can or Absolutely Not?
-
-
-