Psst. *whispering* Let me help you out for a sec---the many and the few---this is what all the parables are about.
No, it isn't "what all the parables are about." It isn't even what the parable of the wheat and tares are about, which is the closest parable, in terms of message.
"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them" "Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mt 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you (the few) to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them (the many) it is not given.
Why do you think Jesus spoke in riddles to the masses? Wasn't it to get them to think about what he was saying, and take it to heart -- to quicken their imaginations, so that they would "get it?" You're presenting this as if Jesus was using a secret code, so that
only"the few" would be able to understand.
No what you point out is “that probably was not the writers intention” and then you tell me if I back something up with other scripture from somewhere else in the bible you tell me im wrong because im proof-texting or taking something out of context and then I show how God instructed everyone on how to understand and you still think im wrong.
That's right. improper reading will not yield proper understanding. If you don't know what the writer intended to write, you don't know what the writer intended to write. You only know what you understand him to have written. Basing an interpretation on your own understanding isn't good enough.
Yes. You're wrong in the way you understand how God instructed us.
Lets get this straight. I use scripture to interpret scripture.
You can't use something as a tool to interpret something, when that tool, itself, hasn't been properly interpreted.
This doesn't work.
You use theologians theories on what MAY be the reason why someone wrote something to interpret scripture.
No, I use exegetes' scholarship on what may be the reasons. (There's a big difference between exegesis and theology.)
Now you tell me which is correct.
It's not a matter of black-and-white. It's a matter of negotiating a huge grey area. I trust the lamp of scholarship in areas of translation, exegesis, criticism, history, archaeology, anthropology, etc. to get me as close as can be gotten.
Right and when a document tells you in plain language to “put your first name here” it takes a lot of knowledge to do this.
Here's your bugaboo: The Bible is not written "in plain language." It's written in language that needs translation and interpretation.
God tells you its line upon line and precept upon precept here a little there a little/rightly divide the word/no scripture is of its own interpretation and you say im foisting stuff.
Not in terms of exegesis.
Yes. You're foisting a methodology upon an exercise that methodology was never meant to serve.
Besides its laughable when you speak of knowledge
How so?
Why cant you admit and see the errors of the church.
I
do admit the errors of the Church. They just aren't what
you think they are.
The gargoyles and sexual innuendo’s all around their buildings and paintings etc etc etc and you refuse to open your eyes and see the truth of the church.
Could be possible that you're misinterpreting the symbolism...
Wasn’t it you who said to me you can see anything into a scripture if you wanted and that don’t make it true?
Something like that.
Well even with the trinity if you carefully read the words you still shouldn’t be able to see a trinity.
Who are you to say what we should or should not see?
Talk about seeing something you wanna.
In fact, the Trinity was not "something that we
wanted to see." The Trinity is something that is heavily implied, and it causes problems, because it's a
mystery. The Trinity doesn't solve anything reasonable. But it does serve
insight into who God is.
Ahh the same Christian parroting to keep deceiving the sheeple.
You are in
no position to make such an assessment. Frankly, I'm getting real, real tired of you accusing me of deception. In fact, you may be breaking forum rules. Who is more likely to be engaging in deception? One with no authority to make theological calls, who does not use good scholarship in his interpretive methods, who insists on claiming truth? Or one who
does have that authority, who uses good scholarship in his interpretive methods, who insists that the Bible can (and does) encompass a polyvalent hermeneutic of God?
that nasty nasty evil doctrine of freewill again.
Case in point.
Do you see it or do I need to show you?
Hubris. You've wasted enough of my time already.
Oh boy! Man you are more lost then what I thought then if you even consider these!
Why? They're all scriptural statements.
The second to the last line reads: "I believe… in the resurrection of THE BODY." Sounds good right? Sounds scriptural right? But is it though? No.
Yes, it is.
Well at least you to believe in universalism
That's the first thing you've gotten right.
