The bible says to not strain at a gnat, but a parable is not a gnat ;)

[Vicomte13]

I apologize. I got mixed up between Talmud/Tanakh.

You were probably thinking of the Samaritans, as they use only the Torah (their version of it) and not the Nevi'im or the Kethuvim.

 

[Meowzltov]

Only if you look at them from a human perspective (way of thinking), which I indicated is clearly an error. So no. We DON'T AGREE.

The Parable of the rich man, is not just a fable, it has everything to do with the problems of our modern world, which is based on greed, materialism and wealth. That one was "prophetic" as well.

On what basis do you say that the parable of the rich man is more than a parable? A parable by definition is a teaching story. If you want to say the parables are something more than parables, then I want to see your evidence, your proof. Make your case.

This is what you are doing, you are saying that because two parables (or if you include the fig tree, three) are prophetic that therefore they all must be. This is generalizing from too small a sample and is a logical fallacy. Let me give you an example. Someone presents you with a platter of fruit. It has apple slices and half-banans and grapes and cantalope pieces and kiwi and watermelon pieces and orange slices. You say,"watermelon and catelope are melons; it is a tray of melons."

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a teaching story for ALL time, not just ours. It addresses greed. Greedy people exist in any time. Jesus taught it to address the greedy people in his own time, but of course he meant it to be timeless.

 

[-57]

I believe both literal and spiritual at the same time, because God has made me able to. Did you know that the way Wisdom was taken out of God in the beginning is much like the way Woman (not named as separate until later) was taken out of Adam? (Proverbs 8)

You didn't answer the question. Perhaps it was because you were uncomfortable with it. I asked because it might help in understanding your replies.

As far as the spiritual is concerned....you might be able to say Eve was taken from Adams rib (side) to show she was to stand beside Adam. She wasn't taken from Adams foot or "thumb" to show she was under Adams rule. That all sounds nice but I don't think there is any direct biblical support for that notion.

As for wisdom, women and Proverbs 8 and the way you suggest...you'll need to explain a bit more.

 

[-57]

So in this sense, humanity is a parable of what God is like, as advised in Genesis: made in the image and likeness

I think you'll need to define your definition of parable.

 

[-57]

Wrong, so wrong. Those of us who read Genesis within its genre don't deny it. Rather we embrace it more fully, since we aren't trying to make it something it's not.

When one denies what is written in Genesis and assigns it the genre of parable....they typically belong to the Theo-Evo Sect.

The problem with that Sect is they effect Romans 5:12 which says "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"

The one man must be changed to an "evolving population". My problem is the bible doesn't teach that. The reason for the fall of Adam and Eve must also be modified.

 

[Meowzltov]

Disagreement is not agreement. Division is not unity either.

I never said it was. Go back and read what I said again.

 

[Meowzltov]

Could we say that parables teach lessons in behavior and wisdom, and if not heeded can become prophetic in an individual or a nations future?

Prophecy makes specific predictions of the future. The general predictions of the consequences of bad behavior or good behavior in parables cannot be considered to be prophecy. To every generalization there are exceptions. The parable of the wheat and tares is an example.

 

[Meowzltov]

I have examined Jewish law and know how Jews look at it. But I think that the Jews badly mishandled their law. I know how they think the Torah is to be used, and I think they are wrong. In this respect, I agree with the Karaites.

I seriously doubt that you are a Talmudic scholar on par with the Jews or even a Torah scholar. I doubt that you have even seen how Jews study in a Yeshiva and know the level to which they dig, having to know the original languages so that they don't need to depend upon a flawed translation. They have lived and breathed Torah and Talmud since the day they were circumcised. <Staff Edit>

And you still haven't dealt with Deuteronomy 17:8-13 (much less Matthew 23:2 and Matthew 23:23).

 

[Meowzltov]

When one denies what is written in Genesis and assigns it the genre of parable....they typically belong to the Theo-Evo Sect.

No one is denying what is written in Genesis, and no one is "assigning" a genre (the genre is what it is). Are you referring to Theistic Evolution?

The problem with that Sect is they effect Romans 5:12 which says "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"

The one man must be changed to an "evolving population". My problem is the bible doesn't teach that. The reason for the fall of Adam and Eve must also be modified.

Nothing in Theistic Evolution denies Original Sin. It is very obvious to me that at some time during our evolution (most very likely at the time when God gave us our immortal sou) we reached a stage of moral sentience. This gave us culpability, meaning that unlike other animals, we are now capable of sin. This capacity (even predilection) to sin is indeed passed on from parent to child. If that's not Original Sin, I don't know what is.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

You didn't answer the question. Perhaps it was because you were uncomfortable with it. I asked because it might help in understanding your replies.

As far as the spiritual is concerned....you might be able to say Eve was taken from Adams rib (side) to show she was to stand beside Adam. She wasn't taken from Adams foot or "thumb" to show she was under Adams rule. That all sounds nice but I don't think there is any direct biblical support for that notion.

As for wisdom, women and Proverbs 8 and the way you suggest...you'll need to explain a bit more.

I get that you don't understand what I said. I stated something that used the phraseology that was an affirmative answer to your question. You miss the point I was making about Proverbs 8, if you read the bible like you read my posts ... I'm inclined to believe you'll make similar mistakes in interpretation.

I think you'll need to define your definition of parable.

Jesus defined the parable. "What is the kingdom of God like? What can it be likened to?" A parable explains one thing with another. In the biblical case it explains Godly things with earthly things.

When one denies what is written in Genesis and assigns it the genre of parable....they typically belong to the Theo-Evo Sect.

The problem with that Sect is they effect Romans 5:12 which says "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"

The one man must be changed to an "evolving population". My problem is the bible doesn't teach that. The reason for the fall of Adam and Eve must also be modified.

I recall in Titus it says that to the pure all things are pure, we learn from the context that the opposite is also true. In this case you're looking for false teachings, so you distort what is written to make it what you want to read out of it.
<Staff Edit>

 

[Meowzltov]

Jesus defined the parable. "What is the kingdom of God like? What can it be likened to?" A parable explains one thing with another. In the biblical case it explains Godly things with earthly things.

Extremely well said.

 

[W2L]

I never said it was. Go back and read what I said again.

I know, but it seems to be perception that has roots, so I thought I would just say a few words.

 

[Hank77]

Prophecy makes specific predictions of the future.

You might be interested in this article seeing it is written by a Catholic.
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Prophecy.htm

1Co 14:3 and he who is prophesying to men doth speak edification, and exhortation, and comfort;

 

[Hank77]

Prophecy makes specific predictions of the future. The general predictions of the consequences of bad behavior or good behavior in parables cannot be considered to be prophecy. To every generalization there are exceptions. The parable of the wheat and tares is an example.

I believe this is both a parable and prophecy.
Matthew 21:33-46
Unlike King David when Nathan showed him his sin, they didn't repent.

 

[Vicomte13]

I seriously doubt that you are a Talmudic scholar on par with the Jews or even a Torah scholar. I doubt that you have even seen how Jews study in a Yeshiva and know the level to which they dig, having to know the original languages so that they don't need to depend upon a flawed translation. They have lived and breathed Torah and Talmud since the day they were circumcised. Quite frankly, you just haven't put in the time. I think you have a lot of chutzpah to think you have a right to judge.

And you still haven't dealt with Deuteronomy 17:8-13 (much less Matthew 23:2 and Matthew 23:23).

The Jews put in oceans of time into those things, and yet they reject the Son of God. I don't question their intellect, but their judgment is manifestly flawed.

The Jewish law is the Jewish law. The Torah law was not Jewish law, it was God's law. The Jews interpret it, and interpret it and interpret it. And in their interpretations, they depart from what it says. The calf and the mother's milk are a classic example.

It doesn't matter in the end to me anyway, other than the fact that Christians get snared in a law that never applied to them and start saying and doing silly and bad things - like burning witches or killing Jews, for instance. After all, it is the law of Torah that compels the execution of blasphemers, and given that Jesus was in fact the Son of God, when Jews deny that are they not blasphemers, and therefore subject to the death penalty (by stoning) under the Torah? Of course!

Problem: non Jews are not in positions of authority, under the Torah, to carry out such a sentence - that law was for Jews, not for Gentiles. And Jesus certainly didn't give anybody the authority to kill anybody for blasphemy.

In the end, one cannot hold up the Jewish scholarship about the law as "authority" in the absolute - they lost that authority when God tore his way out the Holy of Holies and then tore the Temple down to the ground. But in terms of cultural authority within the world of Jews, of course, the authority you cite is supreme.

And since I'm talking to a Jew - you - of course that is where you're going to place your trust.
I wonder how you square the fact that these same authorities whom you vaunt for their authority in such matters with the fact that they reject the Son of God and consider him to have been at best a deluded soul and at worst, a blasphemer.

But I'm not really all that curious about it.

 

[Meowzltov]

You might be interested in this article seeing it is written by a Catholic.
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Prophecy.htm

1Co 14:3 and he who is prophesying to men doth speak edification, and exhortation, and comfort;

The sort of gift of prophesy described in 1 Cor is not the prophesizing I was talking about, not that of the formal prophets like elijah or john.

I do understand the link. With the exception of Daniel, John, and some of Christ's prophecies, the other prophets basically just chewed people out and told them to stop committing idolatry or else.

 

[Meowzltov]

I believe this is both a parable and prophecy.
Matthew 21:33-46
Unlike King David when Nathan showed him his sin, they didn't repent.

Jesus is just saying that he knows they are going to kill him.

 

[Meowzltov]

The Jews put in oceans of time into those things, and yet they reject the Son of God. I don't question their intellect, but their judgment is manifestly flawed.

Rabbinical Jews reject Christ because God has veiled their eyes. It's not because their judgment is flawed, or because they are rebellious, or because they are stupid. They are not responsible for their rejection of Christ.

 

[ewq1938]

Rabbinical Jews reject Christ because God has veiled their eyes. It's not because their judgment is flawed, or because they are rebellious, or because they are stupid. They are not responsible for their rejection of Christ.

I believe they were blinded after the rejection of Christ not before it.

 

[Hank77]

Jesus is just saying that he knows they are going to kill him.

It think that is the outcome yes, but I think that there is more to the prophecy.

Mat 21:41 They say to him, `Evil men--he will evilly destroy them, and the vineyard will give out to other husbandmen, who will give back to him the fruits in their seasons.'

Mat 21:43 `Because of this I say to you, that the reign of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth its fruit;