Ridiculous statement of Jesus?

[Robert.Evans]

That is correct.

Not only that we have to look at the first time this was said and by who.

Unfortunately said person never supplies sources for his statements so we can examine the possible historicity.

Mt 13.34

The Historicity of it does not matter. It is the spiritual understanding that counts. And do you know why? Because God exists, the very one that you discuss all the time

 

[Robert.Evans]

Um if you have not noticed, the worlds population goes to a place 1 to 2 times a week to be taught by those educated more on the topic.

I mean lets look at you for example, I doubt you even know Jesus real first name he and his followers used.


If you don't even know a mans first name, how can you know the man? By reading a book written by unknown authors from a different culture and religion who never heard a word he said, living in a different part of the world decades later?

Now he is a man who asks for sources yet gives none, nor does he give out the information. As usual, this is just point scoring from you.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I do however think you mistake my context and opinion here. I am not replacing theology with science and history. I am adding to the value of theology with history and science.

I wish you did just that. Unfortunately, you don't.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Thanda.

You said you embrace the truth. I have showed evidence you do no such thing, you refuse truth in many places.


Then you tried ti dance around the subject saying your own personal truth is not the same as everyone else's truth.



There is only one truth, the question is how aware are you of said truth.

Who are you to say there is only ONE truth? Narrowness of mind stops you understanding deeper things. This is where you cross the boundary again. I thought you were going to teach about history? When's it going to start?

 

[Thanda]

It says:
Mat 13:34 All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable.

I have read the scripture. The KJV has the following:

34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:​

This is a specific group of people who Jesus was speaking to. In the chapter it lists all the parables Jesus used to teach the people. After listing the parables, the author comments that Jesus only used parables to teach this crowd.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Your belief that knowing that Jesus was actually Joshua somehow has any relevance to faith and spirituality shows how really shallow your understanding of this subject is.
God is a living being who communicates with us now, today. I need not get a phd in the history of the bible to talk with him and have a relationship with him. Even a man who cannot count to ten (because of a lack of education) can have a relationship with God just as well as an esteemed scholar could.

And religion is not so much about concepts as it is about practice. And it is in the practice of religion that it's true value is realized - not in its debating or discussion.

Absolutely. Well said.
Your points show why it works so well!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It says:
Mat 13:34 All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable.

Ταῦτα πάντα ἐλάλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν παραβολαῖς τοῖς ὄχλοις καὶ χωρὶς παραβολῆς οὐδὲν ἐλάλει αὐτοῖς
ho Iesous (Jesus) is in the nominative, and therefore clearly the subject, while tauta panta is the object, and en parabolais tois ochlois as well as autois are in the dative and demonstrative tauta present for a reason: "all" modifies "these things" (tauta), not parables/parabolais or ochlois/autois. In other words, the Greek clearly says that of "these [particular] things" that Jesus said, they were said in parables. It does not say that "Jesus said all things in parables", but rather that "Jesus said all of these [particular] things" in parables. One can't explain tauta (among other problems) under your interpretation.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The truth is obvious that you were lonely, I would not ask for proof.

Not the point. He/she wants you to answer now. You can't possibly know as you can't see them. So you live by faith??

In context theology is historically based not emotional or just spiritual. The Abrahamic religions are all called historical religions

Of course they are historically based. It happened that's why. It's fact. But that is not the point. As interesting and helpful as it might be to understand what a certain group of people did then in understanding the text, it is not essential. It is essential to be enlightened sufficiently, however, to know what they mean in a deeper sense and how it applies you everyday life.... not how many camels someone had!

 

[Robert.Evans]

My truth is to hold no bias in interpreting the text. By study of the text, I have a deep appreciation of how the message and theology develop.

Knowledge builds value to the theology, morals and lessons that goes way beyond mythology and rhetoric.

You have no understanding about the deeper theology, how ever much you think you might. And even if someone explains it all to you, it will mean nothing. It will be no different than say one football team is better than another and explaining the reasons why. Will that make you really see it? feel it?

 

[Robert.Evans]

You do know the sermon on the mount has no historicity at all?


Still don't know Jesus first REAL name? yet you live your life around the person?

And still you haven't given it. So now we know that you do not come here to exchange information and help people, but just to hold your head above others.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I have read the scripture. The KJV has the following:

34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:​

This is a specific group of people who Jesus was speaking to. In the chapter it lists all the parables Jesus used to teach the people. After listing the parables, the author comments that Jesus only used parables to teach this crowd.

Mat 13:10 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" Mat 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Mat 13:34 All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable. Mat 13:35 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world." Mar 4:11 And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, Luk 8:10 he said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that 'seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.'

It mention those OUTSIDE.
If you can't see that the NT is a parable, I can't help you and anyone OUTSIDE can read it. Then the secrets of the kingdom of heaven are known by ALL and the text is found to be false.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Ταῦτα πάντα ἐλάλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν παραβολαῖς τοῖς ὄχλοις καὶ χωρὶς παραβολῆς οὐδὲν ἐλάλει αὐτοῖς
ho Iesous (Jesus) is in the nominative, and therefore clearly the subject, while tauta panta is the object, and en parabolais tois ochlois as well as autois are in the dative and demonstrative tauta present for a reason: "all" modifies "these things" (tauta), not parables/parabolais or ochlois/autois. In other words, the Greek clearly says that of "these [particular] things" that Jesus said, they were said in parables. It does not say that "Jesus said all things in parables", but rather that "Jesus said all of these [particular] things" in parables. One can't explain tauta (among other problems) under your interpretation.

There are other texts I have posted. But largely we have to intepret. Your's is always to be sceptical. I know that now.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But largely we have to interpret.

The difference is that you are interpreting a text written in a language you can't read, and I am not.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The difference is that you are interpreting a text written in a language you can't read, and I am not.

So? You think that God would not be able to get around that? Or perhaps you don't take that into consideration as a non-believer.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So? You think that God would not be able to get around that?

I don't really think that, no. However, I am familiar with translations, both those of several ancient languages and of several modern. The level of disconnect can be largely overcome, depending upon the nature of the text and the purposes for which it is used, but never wholly so. You've demonstrated this already.

Or perhaps you don't take that into consideration as a non-believer.

I was raised Catholic. I studied Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Greek, and Latin primarily to be capable of reading religious texts (and German, French, & Italian in part to read scholarly contributions to theology, history, classics, etc.). Truthfully, I mostly gave up on Sanskrit and Hittite I studied for linguistic reasons (like Navajo). I am agnostic, but not apathetic.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't really think that, no. However, I am familiar with translations, both those of several ancient languages and of several modern. The level of disconnect can be largely overcome, depending upon the nature of the text and the purposes for which it is used, but never wholly so. You've demonstrated this already.

And you have demonstrated that people put themselves before God. You are using your own intelligence to say you are right or know more than me. The text in no way shows that is the way. That is my point.

I was raised Catholic. I studied Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Greek, and Latin primarily to be capable of reading religious texts (and German, French, & Italian in part to read scholarly contributions to theology, history, classics, etc.). Truthfully, I mostly gave up on Sanskrit and Hittite I studied for linguistic reasons (like Navajo). I am agnostic, but not apathetic.

So you are a learned man, and have been blessed.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The difference is that you are interpreting a text written in a language you can't read, and I am not.

I might add, perhaps it is I who can read them and you who cannot.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I might add, perhaps it is I who can read them and you who cannot.

And I would say that to the extent the idea behind what you assert is true, it is that you can understand the text, while I can only read. You can't read ancient Greek. Perhaps I lack the intelligence, understanding, or some other property necessary to understand the NT whatever language it is translated into or in its original language. Perhaps you possess these qualities. But I would still say that it isn't that you can read these texts so much as that you can understand what I can't.

 

[JoStories]

I don't think so. I have never once had a conversation with Outhouse where our discussion was about the content of the text in the scriptures. Outhouse always argues about what scholars, academics and archaeologists say about the accuracy of the stories ( not the doctrine) in the bible. In other words Outhouse never argues from a theological standpoint but from a historical, scientific or academic standpoint.

Now as you are well aware faith goes beyond what scientists can and can't currently explain. That is why I pay little attention to him (Outhouse, that is).

I agree with you that having faith does change how one understands certain religious texts. For example, I cannot prove any of The Teachings of The Buddha were said by him but that doesn't change that I find great wisdom within that book. I very much agree with you that there are two sides to this and that Outhouse does view it purely from the historical POV and while he may or may not have a religious understanding (which I believe he states he is an atheist), you and I do have that understanding. So I get what you are saying Thanda, truly I do. I just find, as a theologian, that Outhouse does have many valid points on this topic. But then, he and I do not discuss my faith either, and we do disagree on the concept of God being a tangible entity.

 

[JoStories]

And what happens when someone decides they've learned enough but what they have learnt falls short of what they could and should have learned? What I'm trying to understand is: does a person achieve Nirvana because they say they are ready for it or do they achieve it because they actually are ready for it?

Condolences for your losses.

Thank you for you kindness. It is not up to the person exactly to decide when they have become enlightened, although at the same time, it is. It is a journey. A person who is striving toward enlightenment uses many ways to reach that enlightenment. I think the difference here is that you think of the person in one life as being the only one who has any input. There is the higher soul which is that which is called the Anima Mundi or Atman and emanates from God. However, that said, The Buddha also taught that there is no soul, or no self and each life is unique in that nothing is permanent. The corporeal self ( the person within the lifetime) is just the vehicle for learning., Here is a nice link that explains it nicely. http://people.opposingviews.com/buddhist-concept-soul-6308.html.