Is So, Is Not, Is Too

Hazelelponi said:

First, since you contradicted yourself I'm guessing as to your meaning behind what you said.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence that what we call parables found in scripture are fictional.

TLK Valentine said:

If the purpose of his stories had been to educate by illustrating a point, it would be far easier to craft a story than to hope to witness a real one.

Click to expand...

Jesus got around and paid attention. It would be far easier to relate an actual event than invent one. Besides, the point is to make a lesson stick. Actual events have more impact on people than fictional stories. (This post was inspired by actual events.)

SkyWriting said:

And Jesus's claim to being The Truth
would not be helped by being a good
story inventor requiring imagination.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Jesus ≠ Confucius

SkyWriting said:

Jesus got around and paid attention.

Click to expand...

So did William Shakespeare.

It would be far easier to relate an actual event than invent one.

Click to expand...

Easier for you, perhaps -- but Jesus seemed to be the creative type.

Besides, the point is to make a lesson stick. Actual events have more impact on people than fictional stories. (This post was inspired by actual events.)

Click to expand...

You're assuming people back then thought exactly the same as people in the here and now.

But here's a question I'm curious about: If it could be shown (and I'm not saying I can do it, so don't panic) that the stories were just that -- stories, not real events, would their lessons mean less to you?

SkyWriting said:

And Jesus's claim to being The Truth
would not be helped by being a good
story inventor requiring imagination.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you're saying that Jesus had no imagination.

TLK Valentine said:

So did William Shakespeare.



Easier for you, perhaps -- but Jesus seemed to be the creative type.



You're assuming people back then thought exactly the same as people in the here and now.

But here's a question I'm curious about: If it could be shown (and I'm not saying I can do it, so don't panic) that the stories were just that -- stories, not real events, would their lessons mean less to you?

Click to expand...

If I tell you the story of my brother shooting himself in the head with a shotgun he got from my father's closet bedroom, and my parents cutting up the living room carpet in a square that left the bare wood showing in our living room.....more effect if I say true story or just leave you guessing?

SkyWriting said:

If I tell you the story of my brother shooting himself in the head with a shotgun he got from my father's closet bedroom, and my parents cutting up the living room carpet in a square that left the bare wood showing in our living room.....more effect if I say true story or just leave you guessing?

Click to expand...

Depends on the point of the story.

Jesus said, "tear down the temple, and I'll raise it in three days," and yet you knew he wasn't talking about the stone edifice in Jerusalem.
Jesus said that you needed to be born again, but not once did you consider the physics of crawling back into your mother's womb, did you?
When Jesus said to drink from him, and you'll never thirst, you wouldn't run up to him with a red solo cup, would you?


Seems to me that Jesus can get his message across well enough without being literal... um, you don't take all that literally, do you?

TLK Valentine said:

Jesus said that you needed to be born again, but not once did you consider the physics of crawling back into your mother's womb, did you?

Click to expand...

If he knows his Bible, he did.

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

AV1611VET said:

If he knows his Bible, he did.

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Click to expand...

Good boy!

Now, clearly Nicodemus was missing the point of what Jesus was saying... can you figure out where he went wrong?

TLK Valentine said:

Good boy!

Now, clearly Nicodemus was missing the point of what Jesus was saying... can you figure out where he went wrong?

Click to expand...

He overlooked the fact that science is myopic?

Or maybe he thought [all of] reality consisted only of what can be seen, heard, felt, smelt, and touched?

AV1611VET said:

He overlooked the fact that science is myopic?

Or maybe he thought [all of] reality consisted only of what can be seen, heard, felt, smelt, and touched?

Click to expand...

Odd for a member of the Sanhedrin... don't you think?

Why don't you try again -- the answer is easier than you think it is; your agenda (as always) is blinding you to it.

TLK Valentine said:

Why don't you try again -- the answer is easier than you think it is; your agenda (as always) is blinding you to it.

Click to expand...

Oh ... let me guess.

Jesus was speaking figuratively, not literally?

AV1611VET said:

Oh ... let me guess.

Jesus was speaking figuratively, not literally?

Click to expand...

Good boy! Nicodemus missed the point because he didn't see that!

Now, go back and find at the other examples I posted in the Bible... And, aside form the fact that those folks made the same error, what do they all have in common?

(The answer's so simple, I'm almost embarrassed I have to lead you to it)

TLK Valentine said:

Now, go back and find at the other examples I posted in the Bible...

Click to expand...

Like refusing to take into account a figure of speech being employed with the Joshua passage; leading to the mistaken belief that the Bible speaks of geocentrism?

AV1611VET said:

Like refusing to take into account a figure of speech being employed with the Joshua passage; leading to the mistaken belief that the Bible speaks of geocentrism?

Click to expand...

Your agenda's still blinding you; the answer is so simple I was certain you'd see the commonality.

inquiring mind said:

b) If you are an Evolutionist you of course believe in a very old earth based on our timescale, you think the Bible is irrelevant (even inaccurate), science trumps everything (whether you want to admit it or not, similar to a religion in that you have faith in it whether it’s assumptions are proven or not), you are against any form of Creation because it puts God in the picture above science.

Click to expand...

I always think it strange that accepting evolution immediately shoves someone in the atheistic camp, since there are actually some pretty polemical Christian apologists out there who really have it in for Creationism and Intelligent Design.

As to the assumptions here, I see no reason to doubt the modern scientific estimates concerning the age of the earth and universe (though I frankly don't see what practical difference it could make).

I do not currently accept the authority of Scripture, but if I did, I would read it as a progressive revelation in which information was imparted to people gradually, based on their needs and what their cultural context allowed them to understand. I do think the Genesis creation myth has a fair amount of synergy with modern science when read as allegorical instead of as a literal scientific treatise.

Science does not trump everything. I view philosophy as the queen of the sciences, though I do think that it and the empirical sciences should be in constant dialog for the sake of both fields of study.

I am not against every form of Creation, since I'm inclined to accept creatio ex nihilo. I'm not sure what it means to "put God in the picture above science," since God isn't a method of inquiry. Do we put deer or electrons or the color blue in the picture above science?

SkyWriting said:

There is no evidence
that what we call parables found in scripture
are fictional.

Click to expand...

Not every story with Jesus in it is a parable. But he did sometimes employ the use of parable, according to scripture.

When Jesus spoke to the Roman centurian and healed his servant - this was a real event and you can tell that by the lead in and every thing surrounding the event. Very real. Very true.

However, in the parable of the talents you can see by the lead in that it's meant to illustrate a moral, and as such there may never have been a real man who gave one of his servants a coin who subsequently buried it.

now, if you believe there was a real man who had servants and etc and this was all a literal story, that's fine too.

inquiring mind said:

Matthew 13:35 tells us Jesus’ parables were speaking of things of old, and it is referring to Psalms 78:1-4, which doesn’t sound like He’s making things up, but fulfilling prophecy by passing along stories from ancestors.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to say anything against your belief. Certainly, if you believe that in the parable of the talents, for instance, that the servant who buried his coin was a real person then that is fine. It doesnt hurt anything to believe that.

But since the meaning of parable is a fictional allegory it does seem strange to argue that it's not fiction at all and that somewhere a servant buried his coin.

The "of old" portion of that verse you quoted, is meaning or speaking of the hidden truths that were from the foundation of the world.

Those hidden truths that were true from the foundation of the world is talking about the underlying meanings of the stories, not that a servant who buried his coin in the dirt was true from the foundation of the world, but the meaning of the story is a truth from the foundation of the world - such as if you, as a servant of Christ bear no fruit after your salvation, then your going to be thrown out of the Kingdom of God..

These truths from the foundation of the world are revealed to us in the Messianic age. Praise God. But whether or not there were three literal servants or whether it was a story He made up to illustrate a point doesn't matter or doesn't affect the faith of most of us.

If it affects your faith then honestly it doesn't matter. There could be three literal servants, I certainly can't say that I know.

But you should know that when it comes to the parables, the underlying meanings are what is absolutely necessary to your faith understand, because they are the truths from the foundation of the world that is imperative for us to know.

Silmarien said:

I always think it strange that accepting evolution immediately shoves someone in the atheistic camp, since there are actually some pretty polemical Christian apologists out there who really have it in for Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Click to expand...

Well, that's because too many Christians have been told to believe that Christianity = Literalism.

As to the assumptions here, I see no reason to doubt the modern scientific estimates concerning the age of the earth and universe (though I frankly don't see what practical difference it could make).

I do not currently accept the authority of Scripture, but if I did, I would read it as a progressive revelation in which information was imparted to people gradually, based on their needs and what their cultural context allowed them to understand. I do think the Genesis creation myth has a fair amount of synergy with modern science when read as allegorical instead of as a literal scientific treatise.

Click to expand...

Which would make the most sense -- an all-knowing deity would know that you cannot pour a gallon of knowledge into a shot-glass of a brain. You need to work with what's in front of you.

Science does not trump everything. I view philosophy as the queen of the sciences, though I do think that it and the empirical sciences should be in constant dialog for the sake of both fields of study.

Click to expand...

Of course -- science is only a process through which people gain knowledge.

I am not against every form of Creation, since I'm inclined to accept creatio ex nihilo. I'm not sure what it means to "put God in the picture above science," since God isn't a method of inquiry. Do we put deer or electrons or the color blue in the picture above science?

Click to expand...

The problem is that "God," when invoked by creationists, is not a means to advance discussion, but to end it. Those who are interested in finding answers tend to be wary of those who claim, "that's it, nothing more to find; you can stop looking."

AV1611VET said:

If he knows his Bible, he did.

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Click to expand...

Yes, considered... and rejected.