Confused about something in Luke

[Radagast]

The Coptic language is the final stage of the ancient Egyptian language, but it is written in the Greek alphabet, except for seven letters.

Yes, both those things are exactly what I've been saying. In fact, the name "Coptic" is derived from the "Gypt" in "Egyptian."

The Coptic alphabet includes the standard Greek letters, some archaic Greek letters that were no longer used in the time of Jesus, and (as someone has already pointed out) some Demotic letters (which were a simplification of Egyptian hieroglyphs).

Here is a Greek/Coptic comparison (as I said, the Coptic script was used only to write the Coptic language of Egypt):

 

[Minister Monardo]

Yes, but it certainly applies to being invited to the Lord's banquet. Everyone is focusing on the person who chose to sit in the seat, but he never would have been asked to move to a different seat had it not been for the host, Jesus. It is the relationship with Jesus that matters. Also, the context is that Jesus noticed how everyone was jockeying for position at this feast, so should that be your focus or should your focus be on your relationship with the Lord and being faithful to Him. In the end that is what will determine if He says "well done thou good and faithful servant".

The Lord most certainly does direct this to His banquet. There is a shift in perspective that is being overlooked. Yes, the setting for the lesson is a Sabbath banquet, but the lesson is directed to a different type of celebration.
Luke 14:8. When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding,
sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him.

Ah, so it is a wedding feast He wants to talk about, and who is going to determine the seating arrangements, but the one who does the bidding.
The coming wedding feast of Christ and His bride is clearly being tied into the lesson.
The seating arrangements will not be determined until He arrives, yes?
1 Corinthians 4:5. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
2 Corinthians 10:18. For not he that commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.
All Scriptures from the King James Version.

 

[pescador]

Luke 14:7-14 says, "When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Read in context, which is the only way to read the Bible, this is clearly about instructions to a Pharisee. It has nothing to do with Jesus throwing a banquet.

 

[pescador]

The Lord most certainly does direct this to His banquet. There is a shift in perspective that is being overlooked. Yes, the setting for the lesson is a Sabbath banquet, but the lesson is directed to a different type of celebration.
Luke 14:8. When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding,
sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him.

Ah, so it is a wedding feast He wants to talk about, and who is going to determine the seating arrangements, but the one who does the bidding.
The coming wedding feast of Christ and His bride is clearly being tied into the lesson.
The seating arrangements will not be determined until He arrives, yes?
1 Corinthians 4:5. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
2 Corinthians 10:18. For not he that commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.
All Scriptures from the King James Version.

You said, "The coming wedding feast of Christ and His bride is clearly being tied into the lesson."

Really??

It's too bad that your (misapplied) verses are from the King James version. That is what it means in an accurate translation in understandable English: “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited." It is a lesson about dinner protocol, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with, "The coming wedding feast of Christ and His bride".

Why can't you just accept what the Word of God clearly says? Do you really have to stretch Jesus' words to mean something other than what He says?

 

[Minister Monardo]

You said, "The coming wedding feast of Christ and His bride is clearly being tied into the lesson."

Really??

It's too bad that your (misapplied) verses are from the King James version. That is what it means in an accurate translation in understandable English: “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited." It is a lesson about dinner protocol, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with, "The coming wedding feast of Christ and His bride".

Why can't you accept what the Word of God clearly says?

Okay, let's try NIV.
7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited.
No, He is not addressing the Pharisee host, He is addressing the guests. Yes, He does redirect the setting to "a wedding feast", my reading was accurate in either translation. Dinner protocol?
If you say so, but Messiah preached the Kingdom of Heaven.
'It has nothing to do with, "The coming wedding feast of Christ and His bride".'
Stating something in an authoritative manner adds no weight to the assertion.
Your opinion is limited, but you are entitled. If you don't think He was using the setting as an opportunity to preach the Kingdom, okay...Why did the Father send His Son to teach dinner protocol?
I receive a clear message concerning the kingdom come, as did one of the guests!
Luke 14:15. When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus,
“Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.”
What reason can you give for this statement? A bad translation?

 

[pescador]

Okay, let's try NIV.
7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited.
No, He is not addressing the Pharisee host, He is addressing the guests. Yes, He does redirect the setting to "a wedding feast", my reading was accurate in either translation. Dinner protocol?
If you say so, but Messiah preached the Kingdom of Heaven.
'It has nothing to do with, "The coming wedding feast of Christ and His bride".'
Stating something in an authoritative manner adds no weight to the assertion.
Your opinion is limited, but you are entitled. If you don't think He was using the setting as an opportunity to preach the Kingdom, okay...Why did the Father send His Son to teach dinner protocol?
I receive a clear message concerning the kingdom come, as did one of the guests!
Luke 14:15. When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus,
“Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.”
What reason can you give for this statement? A bad translation?

Ov vey! Talking about taking things out of context... Why did you skip the following verses?

Here are verses 12-14, "Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Folllowed by, "
When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God."

[Then] Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’" He did not respond to the guest's comment about the feast in the kingdom of God, but continued the lesson.

Regarding verse 7, do you think the Pharisee left the room and didn't hear what Jesus was saying? Don't you realize that the guests were "the Pharisees and experts in the law". He was teaching them all. Have you ever been to a banquet when someone addressed the host, then the others separately? He spoke to the host first, and all could hear Him. Then He spoke to the experts in the law. It's obvious He was telling them all a parable about pride and humility. He ignored the expert in the law's comment which was intended to change the subject. He was not going to "take the bait". (Never forget Jesus' attitude to the Pharisees and other "experts" in the Law.)

"Why did the Father send His Son to teach dinner protocol?" Is that what you really think about this situation? Do you really understand zilch about parables? You should try to understand the meaning of Scripture before you write something so blatantly wrong.

Stating something in an authoritative manner adds no weight to your assertion. I don't consider you an authority on Scripture. Unfortunately, your personal interpretation of God's Word is extremely limited...

 

[Minister Monardo]

Ov vey! Talking about taking things out of context... Why did you skip the following verses?

The OP concerned Luke 14:10, and how you could not correctly understand the reading in the KJV.
You failed to make that point.

Here are verses 12-14, "Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Folllowed by, "

Okay, clearly a change in topic from how to be a humble guest at a banquet to advising the host as to who he should be inviting to his banquets. This would also call into question why he invited Yeshua himself, since at the first instance, the subject immediately is healing on the Sabbath, to which he and the other experts had nothing to say. We are broadening the discussion in two directions to cover the entire chapter, which has several lessons.

"Why did the Father send His Son to teach dinner protocol?" Is that what you really think about this situation? Do you really understand zilch about parables? You should try to understand the meaning of Scripture before you write something so blatantly wrong.

Your words, not mine:"It is a lesson about dinner protocol, plain and simple".
So now you are accusing me of missing the message.
You should try to understand the meaning of Scripture before you write something so blatantly wrong.
Again, your conclusions. I was disagreeing with you. Now you suggest that it was my conclusion.
You are the only blatant person on the thread. You had an agenda from the start, that is to dismiss the King James translation, which many people still make reference to in their studies. In King James english, 'you dissembled.'

 

[pescador]

The OP concerned Luke 14:10, and how you could not correctly understand the reading in the KJV.
You failed to make that point.

Okay, clearly a change in topic from how to be a humble guest at a banquet to advising the host as to who he should be inviting to his banquets. This would also call into question why he invited Yeshua himself, since at the first instance, the subject immediately is healing on the Sabbath, to which he and the other experts had nothing to say. We are broadening the discussion in two directions to cover the entire chapter, which has several lessons.

Your words, not mine:"It is a lesson about dinner protocol, plain and simple".
So now you are accusing me of missing the message.
You should try to understand the meaning of Scripture before you write something so blatantly wrong.
Again, your conclusions. I was disagreeing with you. Now you suggest that it was my conclusion.
You are the only blatant person on the thread. You had an agenda from the start, that is to dismiss the King James translation, which many people still make reference to in their studies. In King James english, 'you dissembled.'

The King James is a flawed translation based on a few source documents written in a type of English that nobody uses any more. We have much better translations than some 400-year-old version designed to please the King of England. The Geneva Bible of 1599 is a fine old translation with accompanying notes that the King ordered to be removed in order to push his own doctrine. The Pilgrims fled and carried the Geneva Bible with them not the King James Version.

I am done discussing this with you. If you can't be taught, why should I bother?

 

[Minister Monardo]

Thank you! I asked the question to show how the 17th Century English of the King James and other Bibles of that time obscure the meaning of the text. The people who read those difficult-to-understand versions must do some type of translation in their minds into contemporary language, with a significant chance of error.

The NIV is a great translation of the early texts. One of my favorite Bibles is the NIV First Century Study Bible. You have to open the leather-bound version as though it was an ancient scroll(!) and it is filled with many explanatory notes, articles, and maps that really help in understanding the meaning of the biblical text.

Hard to imagine anyone who is serious about study to limit themself to one translation.
1 Corinthians 14:33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 

[Minister Monardo]

The King James is a flawed translation based on a few source documents written in a type of English that nobody uses any more. We have much better translations than some 400-year-old version designed to please the King of England. The Geneva Bible of 1599 is a fine old translation with accompanying notes that the King ordered to be removed in order to push his own doctrine. The Pilgrims fled and carried the Geneva Bible with them not the King James Version.

I am done discussing this with you. If you can't be taught, why should I bother?

Please, don't...I can handle the rejection.

 

[NiklasK]

What does this verse mean..?

Luke 14:10

But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when
he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher:
then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat
with thee.

 

[NiklasK]

Well it tells us the importance to be humble, and not to be selfish.

Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Matthew 23:12

We should look to serve others.

And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.”
Mark 9:35