Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So ol' Gautama never used figurative language? Cool, never realized that fact.Luke 19:27.
The sword. Common in both defense against thieves and in attack but means violent clash between Kingdoms. Not Jesus telling people to go murder and kill people in his name.I never claimed the Buddha never used figurative language.
Being sarcastic due to the obvious use of these types of metaphorical language in all the parable genre. All the synoptics use these figures of speech over and over again qua KOG.
What is Luke 19:27 figurative for?
Sorry, but I just don't happen to agree with your personal interpretation - I don't find it convincing, or in line with the plain reading of the verses.The sword. Common in both defense against thieves and in attack but means violent clash between Kingdoms. Not Jesus telling people to go murder and kill people in his name.
These are easy easy easy things to find all over the internet.
Your ignorance is suspect, and appears willful.
your personal interpretation.
I used to be a teacher of both adults and children in Christianity, and taught apologetics as well as having learned Biblical Greek and some Hebrew. So, I wouldn't say that I have refused to invest a few minutes into the issue.The fact that Christians currently are not generally intellectually developed or have understood exegetical or hermeneutical methods does not divorce us from understanding what early audiences would have understood.
It is not perfect but no knowledge area is.
Further why take a vox populi approach? That is a fallacy not a method for understanding the true external world.
Finally, their is nothing "personal" about the interpretation.
I see post modernism as self-refuting in its strong form. I am giving the generally accepted scholarly understanding of KOG theology qua your reference since George Eldon Ladd in the early 1960s. And he was working off of the early ante-nicene patristics. So your interpretation is a straw man. Nothing more.
The fact that others Christian or no refuse to invest a few minutes to "study to show oneself approved," in no way diminishes the truth-value of the Biblical message, anymore than someones misunderstanding of Buddha's message would undermine Buddhism's truth-value.
You claim that the message is clear, but you're not 100% sure that your interpretation is correct?
But did you believe in Christ as your Lord and Savior? That is what is really important.I used to be a teacher of both adults and children in Christianity, and taught apologetics as well as having learned Biblical Greek and some Hebrew. So, I wouldn't say that I have refused to invest a few minutes into the issue.
What's your interpretation of Luke 19:27?
All I can say is that my understanding is what seems most reasonable to me in my mind, given all the information I personally possess. I acknowledge that your understanding is also what seems reasonable to you.How do you know if you are understanding something correctly? It doesn't have to be the bible, but anything someone says. How do we keep from misunderstanding something? Context right?
If you can't or won't or refuse to understand theses concepts I can't have any meaningful conversation with you at all. We might as well go our separate ways. Here are some popular sayings that are taken out of context and literary understanding and are misinterpreted.
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-misunderstood-lines-in-literary-history.php
How does the fact that Jesus was 1. nearby "Jerusalem" and 2. those who heard him "thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear" (Luke 19:11) were the causes which prompted him to speak this parable about Archelaus?It is probably a not so subtle reference to Archelaus. Further the nobleman in the parable is hardly a good person; and further it is interesting that the nobleman says to his servant that he should have deposited the money to build interest, considering that usury is condemned (see Deuteronomy 23:19-20).
I don't think it is an accident either that this parable occurs immediately following the episode with Zaccheus the tax collector, who declares that he will repay all the money he cheated out of people.
With these things in mind I would likely opt to see how it has been interpreted historically by different exegetes prior to attempting to reach a definitive conclusion. Though further from what I can see a frequent theme is the seriousness of future judgment, but it would be interesting that Jesus would use such a cruel and unlawful character to illustrate this point.
-CryptoLutheran
Then what kind of ground would you say you were? I am referencing what Jesus talked about with the seed and the sower.I did, yes. If I didn't, I wouldn't have preached, nor led small groups, nor taught classes, nor done street evangelization.
It is probably a not so subtle reference to Archelaus. Further the nobleman in the parable is hardly a good person; and further it is interesting that the nobleman says to his servant that he should have deposited the money to build interest, considering that usury is condemned (see Deuteronomy 23:19-20).
I don't think it is an accident either that this parable occurs immediately following the episode with Zaccheus the tax collector, who declares that he will repay all the money he cheated out of people.
With these things in mind I would likely opt to see how it has been interpreted historically by different exegetes prior to attempting to reach a definitive conclusion. Though further from what I can see a frequent theme is the seriousness of future judgment, but it would be interesting that Jesus would use such a cruel and unlawful character to illustrate this point.
-CryptoLutheran
But you didn't stay. Therefore you were one of the other types of ground. What did Jesus do to cause you to leave him?I would say I took his message to heart, and "bore fruit".
But you didn't stay. Therefore you were one of the other types of ground. What did Jesus do to cause you to leave him?
Staying with traditional Christianity is indication that a person is NOT bearing fruit. That was his point I think.
Personally I don't think any true followers of Christ would have any association with Christianity.
He did nothingBut you didn't stay. Therefore you were one of the other types of ground. What did Jesus do to cause you to leave him?
He did nothingChristianity unwound itself in my eyes, the more I studied it.
The deeper I studied the Christian scriptures (even into the Greek), the more contradictions I found that I could not adequately resolve; logic and reason appealed to me, demonstrating the illogic and unreasonableness of an allegedly Almighty Deity delivering its message in such a fallible manner; I admitted that I could not prove to myself that anything in the Bible truly happened; its checkered history (like witch hunting) failed to inspire; etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?