LOL okay now that my subject has your attention I can ask another very interesting question. :laughing7: (some are probably so tired of these by now).
Someone said to me that in public Jesus always spoke in parables. Was this always true? Or were there cases when He spoke literally in public?
When Jesus started a sentence using the word "Verily", which I understand as being "Truthfully", was His words to follow then not to always be taken literally as opposed to be seen as being parables?
BlEsSiNgS
Dee
Quote from: DeeDee on November 19, 2008, 01:23:00 PM
LOL okay now that my subject has your attention I can ask another very interesting question. :laughing7: (some are probably so tired of these by now).
Someone said to me that in public Jesus always spoke in parables. Was this always true? Or were there cases when He spoke literally in public?
When Jesus started a sentence using the word "Verily", which I understand as being "Truthfully", was His words to follow then not to always be taken literally as opposed to be seen as being parables?
Verily, I'm a bit tired right now so I keep it short :laughing7:
The meaning of the parable can be true or not true. In case of Jesus it was/is true
Huh ? :dontknow:
What you talking about Willis?
Hi Dee
Jesus spoke in parables to joint audiences usually to confound the religious. The only time I know of is when he spoke in the temple reading from scripture yet, apart from stating a prophesy is fulfilled, there was no sermon. Most of His teachings were public outside the system to the common plebs of society, the religious were there out of curiosity and likely in temples, there was not enough room for the crowds. Many times He had to explain the parables to His disciples.
A parable is no more than a metaphor or simile. If Jesus spoke today, He would use other parallels.
I was under the impression that each time He spoke to a crowd He used parables and when He spoke to his disciples He spoke normal. Thats why I asked if when he used the words Verily at the start of a sentence, he wasn't maybe in those instances speaking to the crowds normally. In other words without parables.
Quote from: DeeDee on November 19, 2008, 01:49:15 PM
I was under the impression that each time He spoke to a crowd He used parables and when He spoke to his disciples He spoke normal. Thats why I asked if when he used the words Verily at the start of a sentence, he wasn't maybe in those instances speaking to the crowds normally. In other words without parables.
Well when He spoke to His disciples it was normal language or an alternative explanation. Take the born again texts, that too is parabolic.
You have to remember, the synoptic gospels were 2nd or 3rd hand accounts and no one really knows if Matthew or John were the actual disciples by the same name. Even the writings of John, the epistles of John and Revelation are thought not to be from the same author and some even question if John in Revelation was John the beloved.
They say Revelation was written before John and the Epistles and as such gives credence to the Preterist POV concerning the texts being fulfilled 70AD. Some date Revelation as late as 110AD thus giving credence to the futurist POV.
Many say Romans was written first.
If you remember - we had a little controversy about this wrt Lazarus and the rich man. I maintain that it was a purposeful use of their (the pharisees) false pagan doctrine ESPECIALLY since what He said contradicts all other scripture about Sheol/hades. Others feel that Jesus was above a tongue-in-cheek characterization of such a serious matter. But then, that means He didn't agree with the rest of His bible lessons :winkgrin:
But what about "When they arrived at the village, Jesus made as if He were going on further. They insisted that He stay with them, because it was getting dark...." Luke 24:28
What??? Jesus faked 'em out? Sweet holy Jesus? :thumbsup:
Quote from: SeekerSA on November 19, 2008, 02:00:51 PM
Many say Romans was written first.
Was that before or after IHWLAMAHOB?
Actually, I forgot what verse that was....
do tell
Quote from: firstborn888 on November 19, 2008, 02:16:57 PM
Quote from: SeekerSA on November 19, 2008, 02:00:51 PM
Many say Romans was written first.
Was that before or after IHWLAMAHOB?
Actually, I forgot what verse that was....
do tell
Acts 17:28
The way the NT is cannoned does not mean they are in chronological order. In fact they are listed largest to smallest from Romans. Acts appears to follow chronologically and Luke was supposed to be the scribe but not all of it. As I understand, Acts is a collation of smaller scrips.
QuoteEven the writings of John, the epistles of John and Revelation are thought not to be from the same author and some even question if John in Revelation was John the beloved.
Who is John the beloved? Is he the same as John the Baptist?
By way of example, if we take the "messianic" mantra Barrack Obama seems to have, take all that has been written of him since his public entrance and put that all into a book. You will come away with a very big book with many different spins and focus'.
I think that the gospels were written in the same light.
FF all this info 2000 years and sure BO may seem like the return of the Messiah - who knows. Its not like he has to literally heal folk anymore as the bible does not say that. It suggests world peace so if that is achieved under his reign (unlikely) and sustains, then 2000 years from now he may well be seen as the 2nd incarnation.
This of course taken form the stance of paper only records (at least they will not have translation problems) Maybe the Lincoln memorial will be replaced with one of Obama.
The reason I point this out is to illustrate how someone who appears special, is "worshiped" and if you read some liberal blogs, they are not far from that. Maybe this is why folk label him as the antichrist.
Quote from: DeeDee on November 19, 2008, 02:27:04 PM
Who is John the beloved? Is he the same as John the Baptist?
John the disciple.
Quote from: SeekerSA on November 19, 2008, 02:32:35 PM
By way of example, if we take the "messianic" mantra Barrack Obama seems to have, take all that has been written of him since his public entrance and put that all into a book. You will come away with a very big book with many different spins and focus'.
I think that the gospels were written in the same light.
FF all this info 2000 years and sure BO may seem like the return of the Messiah - who knows. Its not like he has to literally heal folk anymore as the bible does not say that. It suggests world peace so if that is achieved under his reign (unlikely) and sustains, then 2000 years from now he may well be seen as the 2nd incarnation.
This of course taken form the stance of paper only records (at least they will not have translation problems) Maybe the Lincoln memorial will be replaced with one of Obama.
The reason I point this out is to illustrate how someone who appears special, is "worshiped" and if you read some liberal blogs, they are not far from that. Maybe this is why folk label him as the antichrist.
Not sure if I could swallow that kind of comparison. Scripture was inspired by the Spirit that birthed Christ, then the church . . .Obama . . .not so much.
Quote from: DeeDee on November 19, 2008, 01:23:00 PM
LOL okay now that my subject has your attention I can ask another very interesting question. :laughing7: (some are probably so tired of these by now).
Someone said to me that in public Jesus always spoke in parables. Was this always true? Or were there cases when He spoke literally in public?
When Jesus started a sentence using the word "Verily", which I understand as being "Truthfully", was His words to follow then not to always be taken literally as opposed to be seen as being parables?
BlEsSiNgS
Dee
Jesus only spoke to the multitudes in Parables.
Mt 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
I believe most if not all instances of Jesus saying "verily" was to emphasize the importance of what Jesus was saying.
For instance
Mt 19:23 . Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Does this mean if you have a lot of money that you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven? Not really, but it is true that a person who prizes his earthly possessions very highly will have a tougher time getting there.
So, it is indeed true.
Well, he's not saying heaven itself, he's saying the "kingdom" of heaven . . . heaven to me is the third dimension or the realm of the spirit. To be in the "kingdom" of the spirit would be to be in a place of kingly authority spiritually speaking. And, as you stated, those that worship the tangible over the spiritual, can not very well have authority in the spiritual things.