Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,937,486 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by domenic
Jesus said there are two seed. Gods people, and the tares. The tares are Satan’s people. Gods people will be saved. Jesus said believe in him, and you will be saved…sounds simple to me. A Christian does not serve God for a reward. Not even for the reward of life. There are many who are not tares, but have turned their backs to God, and Jesus...I don't know what he will do with these?
Was that the same Jesus who said the mustard seed was the smallest seed?
Apparently he was confused. And I thought he was god.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,937,486 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Only Satan would keep secrets and hide. The good teacher would teach. The Lord of Confusion would speak in riddles and doom his own children. The fault would teach faultily. Stories are good to catch the attention and memory of faulty, usable people. Riddles cannot teach the most needy.
How many mysteries of how many heavens have to come to "know"? I can't judge you as good, if I can't judge you at all.
For seeing nothing, they look not. For hearing nothing, they listen not. Neither is a fool understandable, but those needy enough might tell themselves they can know. They are scared of doubt, and fall doubtlessly into the pit of their own faulty judgement. We know them by their fruits: the evidence of their useless ego is all around, pride in humility, in a great ironic paradox. They have sold themselves short, and will make a great feast for the Cloaked Beast that Abraham bisected baby animals for.
Huh?
Do you understand what you wrote, because it makes no sense to anyone reading it.
There are millions of people who claim to be Christian. There are many men who claim to be Gods gift to women. There are many who claim to claim, to claim, to claim....it does not make it so.
John 6:44...God has a list. Not all who claim to be on it are.
Have you read the scripture, ".Be in the world, but not a part of it." If they are a part of it, they are false Christians. That is not to say Christians are good. No, we are all sinners. But Christians are not evil. The message is from Jesus. We are commanded to tell it to only those who want to hear it.
But we've already been told that some have been made incapable of 'hearing'. That sort of leaves you to just preaching to the choir , doesn't it?
There were two types of Jew in Jesus day, as there are today…those from the tribe of Judea, and the other…the Tares, who Jesus said, “Were of their father the devil.”
No, Yeshua came to seek and save the lost sheep of the House of Israel...
Yes. But in the terms of the OP, the parable of the sower is talking in terms of people who listen to his words and believe and those who don't. 'He that has ears to hear, let him hear'. But the people he was preaching to didn't have ears to hear. To the disciples it had been given to them to hear but those 'outside' couldn't understand because God had made sure they wouldn't in order to make sure they wouldn't turn and be saved.
That is why he spoke (he said) in parables. This doesn't make sense, because he could explain everything to the ones 'outside' and they still wouldn't listen and turn and repent and be saved because had made it so they wouldn't.
This appalling doctrine makes no sense in any terms but the gospel -writer's belief that those to whom Jesus was preaching were doomed because they were 'outside' of the fold of Christianity. A retrospective view written from the point of view of Christians who saw unbelieving Jews as 'outside' Christianity and doomed right from the start.
Yeshua was not preaching to Gentiles, He was preaching to Israel...
Yes, go forth and preach parables that Christians are still arguing the meaning of to this day.
For example, is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus a literal depiction of the wicked suffering in hell? If so then how is it that the rich man still has body parts like a tongue? How is it that a drop of water doesn't immediately evaporate in the heat?
On the other hand, it might be a metaphor for the story of Annas and his involvement in the plot to kill Lazarus after he was raised from the dead. Is it a coincidence that Annas in real life had five sons, just like the "rich man" in the parable?:
So which is it? Your salvation may depend on which answer you choose so choose wisely. If you go with the latter interpretation you may be missing Jesus' warning about how horrible it is to end up in torment in the fires of hell where you cannot get even a drop of water to cool your parched throat. Then you may actually end up going to hell because you didn't interpret the parable properly.
See what sort of nonsense Christians face trying to interpret this silliness?
If Jesus' intention was to deliberately make a confusing muck of all this He certainly did an excellent job of it.
I tell you it is so nice being a deist because now I don't have to worry about figuring out what all this nonsense means. It's irrelevant. I pick and choose what makes sense to me and toss all the rest if it's ambiguous.
Uh...The Rich Man had five BROTHERS not five SONS...It is a reference to Judah...
No, Yeshua came to seek and save the lost sheep of the House of Israel...
As I recall this is in two instances, where the sysio -phoenecian (or canaanite) woman asked jesus to ...let's check... drive an unclean spirit out of her daughter. She was a Greek (part of the hellenistic -gentile culture) and Jesus speaks this idea that (as messiah) he was sent to reclaim the Israelites. This is so at variance with the idea that God had already hardened their hearts so they couldn't be reclaimed that it is clear that it is a story designed to show how Jesus, as a messiah would be sent to the jews (as historically seemed to be the case) in fact was really beginning a mission that would find its realization in the gentiles.
This again and again is what we see with gentiles (Romans for preference, but Samarians would do at a pinch) showing again and again how more worthy they were to receive the word with pleasure than the Jews who, (because of God's hardening of their hearts, part of his plan to punish the Jews for...something that had annoyed him..) despite listening to Jesus in crowds, would never Really follow Jesus but would (at least through the token scapegoat of the High Priests and a crowd of followers who - Matthew tries to argue, had laid the blame on the Jewish people as a whole and forever - bring about his death, which is also part of God's plan.
None of this makes any sense or is doctrinally coherent..except in the context of Greek Christians who disliked the Jews on general principles and particularly the pharisees who (they thought) were behind the Jewish rejection of Christianity , wrote the Jesus story in which Jesus is made to spout their prejudices and dislike of Jews and their customs and to explain why, though the messiah was ostensibly sent to the jews, they did not deserve it and it was the gentiles (wherever Jesus could find one) who repeatedly showed their remarkably precognitive belief in Jesus and son of God.
You want proof? Mark 15.39 and Matthew 27 34 has a centurion declaring that jesus was the son of God. Even in terms of Roman belief that was a lot to swallow and Mark's naive declaration of christian faith by someone not even a jew was in need of some editing. Luke 23 47, alters this to a rather lame 'This man was innocent' which hardly follows from Jesus dying on the nails and he rather spoils the effect by having the Roman pray to God, which for him would of course be Jupiter.
This is stuff written by Roman Christians and it gets confused and contradictory - throughout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Yeshua was not preaching to Gentiles, He was preaching to Israel...
Whose hearts, we are told, had already been hardened by God so that Jesus's parables would not be understood by them (though even the disciples who had been permitted to understand needed it explained) so they would never be saved. The message of the gospels is rather that the Jews were not worthy of this message, but the gentiles were.
Uh...The Rich Man had five BROTHERS not five SONS...It is a reference to Judah...
Thank you. That is an interesting indication of the relevance of the parable to the refusal of Judah (the Jews) not listening to Jesus' message (apparently foretold in Moses and the prophets).
Judah. The fourth son of Jacob and Leah, and the founder of the Israelite Tribe of Judah. His full brothers are Reuben, Simeon and Levi (all older), and Issachar and Zebulun (younger), and he has six half-brothers.
These clearly refer to the tribes of the hebrew kingdoms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
