NT parables identifiable

[Uphill Battle]

A lot of Theistic Evolution supporters naysay that Jesus was telling stories when he referred to the creation of Man "in the beginning. I contend that the parables of Jesus are noted as such. Going through the gospels, you will notice this.

Matthew 13:3 Then he told them many things in parables
Matthew 13:24 Jesus told them another parable
Matthew 13:31 He told them another parable
Matthew 13:47 Once again the kingdom of heaven IS LIKE (simile use)
Matthew 20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like... (simile use)
Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like... (simile use)
Matthew 25:2 At that time the kingdom of heaven will BE LIKE (simile use)
MAtthew 25:14 Again, it will BE LIKE a man going.... (simile use)

Those are the parables of Matthew, all denoted as such.

In fact, I have gone through all the gospels to check, and with the exception of the Good samaritan in Luke 10, they all are listed as either parables, or simile use is used (the kingdom is like...)

Jesus' reference to creation in the gospels have no such listing, or simile use. I think it is safe to say that Jesus meant what he said.

This of course, lays the question at TE's feet... if you beleive in Jesus, but not creation, why do you not believe what he said about creation? In the beginning, they were created.



Luke

 

[ebia]

A lot of Theistic Evolution supporters naysay that Jesus was telling stories when he referred to the creation of Man "in the beginning. I contend that the parables of Jesus are noted as such. Going through the gospels, you will notice this.


Matthew 13:3 Then he told them many things in parables
Matthew 13:24 Jesus told them another parable
Matthew 13:31 He told them another parable
Matthew 13:47 Once again the kingdom of heaven IS LIKE (simile use)
Matthew 20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like... (simile use)
Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like... (simile use)
Matthew 25:2 At that time the kingdom of heaven will BE LIKE (simile use)
MAtthew 25:14 Again, it will BE LIKE a man going.... (simile use)

Those are the parables of Matthew, all denoted as such.

In fact, I have gone through all the gospels to check, and with the exception of the Good samaritan in Luke 10, they all are listed as either parables, or simile use is used (the kingdom is like...)

Jesus' reference to creation in the gospels have no such listing, or simile use. I think it is safe to say that Jesus meant what he said.

This of course, lays the question at TE's feet... if you beleive in Jesus, but not creation, why do you not believe what he said about creation? In the beginning, they were created.

Luke

The Gospel writers have got to introduce each parable somehow. The natural way to do so is along the lines of "And Jesus told a story about ..."

On the other hand, references to stories that are so well known that you instantly know what someone is refering to need no introduction - you naturally refer to them as though they were true. Even more so given that, for the purposes of the original audience, they were true.

 

[corvus_corax]

Those are the parables of Matthew, all denoted as such.

In fact, I have gone through all the gospels to check, and with the exception of the Good samaritan in Luke 10, they all are listed as either parables, or simile use is used (the kingdom is like...)

Jesus' reference to creation in the gospels have no such listing, or simile use. I think it is safe to say that Jesus meant what he said.

You're missing one small detail...
METAPHOR

Was Peter REALLY a stone that Jesus ran across on the road? I dont think so, but yet Jesus called him a rock, without the gospel saying anything about parables and without jesus saying "you are LIKE a rock.." (simile)

Likewise, Jesus says that he is the True Vine. Does ANYONE believe that Jesus is a big green leafy grapevine in heaven? Of course not. But yet, NO PARABLE OR SIMILE was used in this instance.

One MUST give credence not only to metaphor usage, but also to the FACT that Jesus and his contemporaries would have understood the METAPHORS (as opposed to parables and similes) of the Tanakh

Which is something that many Christians seem to miss

 

[ChristianMatchmaking]

Like so-called "infant baptism," "theistic evolution" as an explanation for the origin of species doesn't hold any water - it just doesn't wash.
I wonder how its adherents try to explain the absence of evidence in terms of intermediate forms, which we should be tripping over in the fossil record. Do they also believe in so-called "punctuated equilibrium"?...It's great to see someone here focusing on Scripture with respect to this debate as well.

 

[ebia]

Like so-called "infant baptism," "theistic evolution" as an explanation for the origin of species doesn't hold any water - it just doesn't wash.
I wonder how its adherents try to explain the absence of evidence in terms of intermediate forms, which we should be tripping over in the fossil record. Do they also believe in so-called "punctuated equilibrium"?...It's great to see someone here focusing on Scripture with respect to this debate as well.

There are plenty of other threads that can correct your misunderstandings about the fossil record. Can we not hijack this one.

 

[corvus_corax]

There are plenty of other threads that can correct your misunderstandings about the fossil record. Can we not hijack this one.

Absolutely
I suggest that ChristianMatchmaking go to this forum to investigate evolution (a serious look at it), creationism and theistic evolution

 

[ChristianMatchmaking]

Jesus' reference to creation in the gospels have no such listing, or simile use. I think it is safe to say that Jesus meant what he said.

This of course, lays the question at TE's feet... if you beleive in Jesus, but not creation, why do you not believe what he said about creation? In the beginning, they were created.

One MUST give credence not only to metaphor usage, but also to the FACT that Jesus and his contemporaries would have understood the METAPHORS (as opposed to parables and similes) of the Tanakh

If an adherent of 'TE' would be inclined to say that Jesus was simply using a metaphor which would have been understood by and familiar to his audience, would they claim to be able to prove such in this case, and on what basis? Certainly Uphill Battle knows that metaphors abound in the Bible. Can anyone provide reliable historical evidence that ancient Israel would have recognized such a metaphor in this case, and especially that they would have 'understood' it, i.e., as a reference to some notion of 'theistic evolution' in different words? Is there any evidence at all that any member of this society believed in 'TE' from Abraham to 70 AD? What exactly is it that they would have 'understood,' according to the adherents of 'TE'?

 

[ebia]

If an adherent of 'TE' would be inclined to say that Jesus was simply using a metaphor which would have been understood by and familiar to his audience, would they claim to be able to prove such in this case, and on what basis? Certainly Uphill Battle knows that metaphors abound in the Bible. Can anyone provide reliable historical evidence that ancient Israel would have recognized such a metaphor in this case, and especially that they would have 'understood' it, i.e., as a reference to some notion of 'theistic evolution' in different words? Is there any evidence at all that any member of this society believed in 'TE' from Abraham to 70 AD? What exactly is it that they would have 'understood,' according to the adherents of 'TE'?

Exactly what Gospel verses are you asking about, and what message (in brief) do you think they are supposed to convey? Then I'll be happy to put my view.

 

[Anduril]

This of course, lays the question at TE's feet... if you beleive in Jesus, but not creation, why do you not believe what he said about creation? In the beginning, they were created.

I don't think Jesus had evolution in mind when he said that, but seeing that when God created the universe starting with the big bang, he already knew what he was creating, and therefore in a sense we were made at the beginning, I don't really see a problem here.

 

[Soul Searcher]

A lot of Theistic Evolution supporters naysay that Jesus was telling stories when he referred to the creation of Man "in the beginning. I contend that the parables of Jesus are noted as such. Going through the gospels, you will notice this.

Matthew 13:3 Then he told them many things in parables
Matthew 13:24 Jesus told them another parable
Matthew 13:31 He told them another parable
Matthew 13:47 Once again the kingdom of heaven IS LIKE (simile use)
Matthew 20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like... (simile use)
Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like... (simile use)
Matthew 25:2 At that time the kingdom of heaven will BE LIKE (simile use)
MAtthew 25:14 Again, it will BE LIKE a man going.... (simile use)

Those are the parables of Matthew, all denoted as such.

In fact, I have gone through all the gospels to check, and with the exception of the Good samaritan in Luke 10, they all are listed as either parables, or simile use is used (the kingdom is like...)

Jesus' reference to creation in the gospels have no such listing, or simile use. I think it is safe to say that Jesus meant what he said.

This of course, lays the question at TE's feet... if you beleive in Jesus, but not creation, why do you not believe what he said about creation? In the beginning, they were created.



Luke

There are two parables in Luke 16 that both start out with the words, there was a certian rich man. Luke 16:1 and 16:19 These are not identified as parables like they are in Matthew but then this is not written by Matthew.

There are also many symbols and metaphors used throughout the bible in some cases they are denoted as such and in some cases they are not but this changes nothing. The bible also tells us that many if not most will not understand the meaning of the text which in itself is a strong indication that it is not to be taken literally in most cases.

In other words we can get the milk by reading as written but the meat is in the understanding of the symbols and metaphors

 

[Soul Searcher]

Speaking of parables the Gospel of Thomas contains 17 parables, some of the sayings are a bit far out but it is an interesting read,

http://www.gospelthomas.com/

 

[ChristianMatchmaking]

[...] when he referred to the creation of Man [...] in the beginning. [...] in the gospels

Exactly what Gospel verses are you asking about, and what message (in brief) do you think they are supposed to convey? Then I'll be happy to put my view.

Any New Testament verse alluded to by Uphill Battle at the start of the thread in which Jesus would be quoted as referring to the original creation of mankind , such as what is found in Matt 19. 19:4, for instance, refers to "He who created" having made "them" male and female. No metaphors appear, nor any rhetorical device for which one may claim that He is making anything other than a straightforward affirmation of creationism. The uphill battle lies squarely with the evolutionists to prove that any biblical text conveys or includes the doctrine of so-called "theistic evolution." Considerations of all the other relevant realities, such as the physical evidence of creation, cannot be divorced from the matter as well, and I for one have yet to be persuaded that any body of physical evidence is consistent with "theistic evolution" as the origin of species instead of plainly affirming of simple creationism.

Jesus is quoted as referring to Peter as a stone or pebble, clearly a metaphor. He is also quoted as asking that the stone be moved away from the opening to Lazarus's tomb. Was this a metaphor, too, or a prosaic request that a stone be moved? Is there any difficulty in distinguishing between the two? Likewise, on what basis might one claim, if so inclined, that statements such as those of Matt 19:4 might be metaphorical in order to rebut the creationist view?

 

[Uphill Battle]

There are two parables in Luke 16 that both start out with the words, there was a certian rich man. Luke 16:1 and 16:19 These are not identified as parables like they are in Matthew but then this is not written by Matthew.

There are also many symbols and metaphors used throughout the bible in some cases they are denoted as such and in some cases they are not but this changes nothing. The bible also tells us that many if not most will not understand the meaning of the text which in itself is a strong indication that it is not to be taken literally in most cases.

In other words we can get the milk by reading as written but the meat is in the understanding of the symbols and metaphors

The parables of luke 15-16 are a series of parables, all begining luke 15:3. It is easy to identify by reading the text between Luke 15 through luke 16 that these are a series of parables.

And not understanding something is NOT a strong indication that it's not to be taken literally.

 

[ebia]

Any New Testament verse alluded to by Uphill Battle at the start of the thread in which Jesus would be quoted as referring to the original creation of mankind , such as what is found in Matt 19. 19:4, for instance, refers to "He who created" having made "them" male and female. No metaphors appear, nor any rhetorical device for which one may claim that He is making anything other than a straightforward affirmation of creationism.

Do you honestly believe made that statement in order to inform creationists 2000 years later that evolution was wrong? The purpose of the statement is clearly to make a point about marriage - it isn't a statement about creationism at all. As a clear reference back to a well known story, it makes no statement about the 'literalness' of that story any more than if I refer to Frodo's actions in the Lord of the Rings I am implying that the Lord of the Rings is a true story. To read such an implication into it is, in my view, absurd.

The uphill battle lies squarely with the evolutionists to prove that any biblical text conveys or includes the doctrine of so-called "theistic evolution."

That would be absurd. The TE view is that the bible doesn't teach the mechanics of how the universe works, so to ask them to point to where it does teach that is absurd.

 

[corvus_corax]

The uphill battle lies squarely with the evolutionists to prove that any biblical text conveys or includes the doctrine of so-called "theistic evolution."

What an obscenely ignorant comment
One might as well say "The uphill battle lies squarely with the scientists to prove that any biblical text conveys or includes the doctrine of so-called "gravity."
or
"The uphill battle lies squarely with the scientists to prove that any biblical text conveys or includes the doctrine of so-called "Germ theory"

Considerations of all the other relevant realities, such as the physical evidence of creation, cannot be divorced from the matter as well, and I for one have yet to be persuaded that any body of physical evidence is consistent with "theistic evolution" as the origin of species instead of plainly affirming of simple creationism.

That's because you havent absorbed what the evolutionary theory actually is

Jesus is quoted as referring to Peter as a stone or pebble, clearly a metaphor. He is also quoted as asking that the stone be moved away from the opening to Lazarus's tomb. Was this a metaphor, too, or a prosaic request that a stone be moved? Is there any difficulty in distinguishing between the two? Likewise, on what basis might one claim, if so inclined, that statements such as those of Matt 19:4 might be metaphorical in order to rebut the creationist view?

Ive addressed that already, but I'll state it again, in simpler terms-
Contemporary understanding of metaphor regarding sacred texts excludes the speakers pointedly explaining such metaphors.

Get it yet?

 

[Uphill Battle]

What an obscenely ignorant comment
One might as well say "The uphill battle lies squarely with the scientists to prove that any biblical text conveys or includes the doctrine of so-called "gravity."
or
"The uphill battle lies squarely with the scientists to prove that any biblical text conveys or includes the doctrine of so-called "Germ theory"

That's because you havent absorbed what the evolutionary theory actually is


Ive addressed that already, but I'll state it again, in simpler terms-
Contemporary understanding of metaphor regarding sacred texts excludes the speakers pointedly explaining such metaphors.

Get it yet?

Ok, and what evidence do you have that the contempories of Jesus understood that creation was a metaphor? None. Besides, there is no benefit to a metaphor of six day creation, when it actually took billions of years. There isn't any way to blend the two. Sure, you could say that the story of the fall was metaphorical (which it isn't) because it teaches a moral lesson. But there is no lesson gained in a six day creation if it did not happen that way. Speaking of a billion year random advancement in terms of a six day creation would be falsehood at best.

 

[ebia]

Ok, and what evidence do you have that the contempories of Jesus understood that creation was a metaphor? None. Besides, there is no benefit to a metaphor of six day creation, when it actually took billions of years.

Rubbish - there is heaps of symbolism and message in the Creation story independent of it's scientific accuracy. If you haven't seen that then it looks like your instance on viewing it as scientifically accurate is interfering in your ability to discern the more important messages.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Rubbish - there is heaps of symbolism and message in the Creation story independent of it's scientific accuracy. If you haven't seen that then it looks like your instance on viewing it as scientifically accurate is interfering in your ability to discern the more important messages.

Really? Ok, what symbolism is there to six day creation? How does the fable of creating a man out of dust have anything to do with abiogenesis? "How do you reconcile the difference between a 6 day fable, and the Billions of years evolution took? The two do not correlate. I am NOT referring to scientific evidence here either. I am stating that you cannot look athe the Genisis account of creation and say that it is allegorical, legend, or metaphor for what would be required for TE. They don't match at all.

 

[Soul Searcher]

On the 6 day creation, one should note that in the account given in genesis there is much activity prior to the first day. I do not understand why so many fail to see this when they read the story.
(Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

When was the begining?
How long did it take to create the heaven?
How long did it take to create the earth?

So depending on the answers to these question we are looking at anywhere from the wink of an eye to several billion years and we are only on verse 1.

(Gen 1:2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

How much time passes during this part of creation?
(Gen 1:3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Again, how much time has gone by so far?
(Gen 1:4) And God saw the light, that itwas good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Again, how much time has gone by so far?
(Gen 1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Finally we have our first reference to time being at the point when God named the light day and the darkness night. this was the first day.

It seems most people just lump these first 5 verses together and say it is one 24 hour period of time but this is not what the text says. The first day does not begin until AFTER the heaven and earth were created.

 

[ebia]

Really? Ok, what symbolism is there to six day creation?

That God "spoke" the world into existance - his word being Christ. That the world is created from nothing. 6 days of work + 1 day of rest is a vital message. There are messages about our purpose, about us being stewards of creation, etc, etc.

How does the fable of creating a man out of dust have anything to do with abiogenesis?

Absolutely nothing - that's entirely my point. The story isn't about how God made the world at all.

"How do you reconcile the difference between a 6 day fable, and the Billions of years evolution took? The two do not correlate. I am NOT referring to scientific evidence here either. I am stating that you cannot look athe the Genisis account of creation and say that it is allegorical, legend, or metaphor for what would be required for TE. They don't match at all.

You are still missing the point - it's not metaphor for evolution - it's metaphor for entirely different stuff. It's not a hazy account of how the world was made, it's a pin-sharp account of why.