• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Anyone Care to Explain Jesus' Mistake?

Skwim

Veteran Member
maybe He was talking to people who might not know .....anyway
way confuse the actual point?
If the point of Jesus' simile has been confused it isn't my doing, but that of those who evidently can't stand the implication of my OP: what Jesus said was wrong, and are driven to all kinds of inane apologetics to discredit it.

What's been most enlightening, and disappointing, is how these attempts highlight the fact that many members lack a reasonable understanding of the structure of the English language and how it works.

.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
The point of the story is not my point. Please see post #1

.
The sense of the literature is
Was Jesus Wrong? Is the Mustard Seed Really Smallest?

to paraphrase:
First, in order to interpret the Bible literally we must pay special attention to what is known as form or genre.
Furthermore, when Jesus asks, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like?” (Mark 4:30, emphasis added) we should immediately be alerted to the fact that Jesus is about to use an extended simile (parable)
Finally, while the One who caused the universe to leap into existence (another figure of speech) by simple speaking would obviously know that an orchid seed is smaller than a mustard seed, an orchid seed would have been profoundly inept for the purpose of the parable. Jesus used the smallest seed familiar to a Palestinian farmer
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
The sense of the literature is
Was Jesus Wrong? Is the Mustard Seed Really Smallest?

to paraphrase:
First, in order to interpret the Bible literally we must pay special attention to what is known as form or genre.
Furthermore, when Jesus asks, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like?” (Mark 4:30, emphasis added) we should immediately be alerted to the fact that Jesus is about to use an extended simile (parable)
Finally, while the One who caused the universe to leap into existence (another figure of speech) by simple speaking would obviously know that an orchid seed is smaller than a mustard seed, an orchid seed would have been profoundly inept for the purpose of the parable. Jesus used the smallest seed familiar to a Palestinian farmer
From the OP.

"As for an explanation, I'm talking about a rational explanation here, not some rubbish that Jesus was only talking about seeds from plants in the area, or that because he was speaking in a proverbial/parable style he wasn't making a statement of fact."

.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Did I take your explanation away from you? Guess so. :( Sorry (only kind of)
The 'explanation' is your missing the forest for the trees. Ludicrously so. (And I think you know it too).

Not that I hope to actually talk to someone who thinks predefining 'reason' to mean "ignore all context and agree with me" is conductive to discussion.
 
Last edited:

user4578

Member
I'm talking about a rational explanation here, not some rubbish that Jesus was only talking about seeds from plants in the area
You say it's rubbish, probably based on the notion that his reference to the earth there was ubiquitous('less than all the seeds that be in the earth'). But there are certain instances where 'earth' refers apparently to the area of which you speak(e.g. Isaiah 51:16, Jeremiah 6:22, Jeremiah 25:11-13;29-31, Ezekiel 7:2, Ezekiel 20:15-16). Also relevant is whether those other seed groups(e.g. orchid) would have been classified as farming seeds(Leviticus 11:37-38).
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
The 'explanation' is your missing the forest for the trees. Ludicrously so. (And I think you know it too).

Not that I hope to actually talk to someone who thinks predefining 'reason' to mean "ignore all context and agree with me" is conductive to discussion.
:D

.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
If the point of Jesus' simile has been confused it isn't my doing, but that of those who evidently can't stand the implication of my OP: what Jesus said was wrong, and are driven to all kinds of inane apologetics to discredit it.

What's been most enlightening, and disappointing, is how these attempts highlight the fact that many members lack a reasonable understanding of the structure of the English language and how it works.

.

Not wrong when you consider the hearers. To the farmers in Palestine listening it was the smallest seed they knew and a parable, which it was, makes use of things you know
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
If the point of Jesus' simile has been confused it isn't my doing, but that of those who evidently can't stand the implication of my OP: what Jesus said was wrong, and are driven to all kinds of inane apologetics to discredit it.

What's been most enlightening, and disappointing, is how these attempts highlight the fact that many members lack a reasonable understanding of the structure of the English language and how it works.

.
well I can't do Aramaic
and I don't see that the point of the parable has been reduced
under the scrutiny of small perspective......the size of a seed....

no wait!.....here it is.....right before your very eyes......!!!!!!!!

one small critique over one small detail and BOOM!

a lengthy thread about small details
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What's been most enlightening, and disappointing, is how these attempts highlight the fact that many members lack a reasonable understanding of the structure of the English language and how it works.
.
Yes, so many don't understand things like hyperboles, metaphors, and such. So someone trying to make an "as-if" statement must be scientifically precise in order for the statement to have true meaning? This is a ridiculous, and myopic vision. Even if I were to say this same thing as Jesus did, it would still convey truth even though in the technical sense of the word there are smaller seed out there. Being scientific was not his point.

Try this on for size if you can't bend language for the sake of metaphor. "Even though it is the smallest of seeds...." it is. Is it smallest of seeds, along with other small seeds, some a little larger, some a little smaller. They are all the smallest of seeds. Now, that that may have jarred the literalist mentality a tad, you should read this about the literalist mentality that infects both the fundamentalist Christians and many of their brothers and sisters who find their sense of security in neo-atheism:

Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance – Religion Online

The literalist mentality does not manifest itself only in conservative churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore material; one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies of creation is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism.

But the problem is even more deep-rooted. A literalist imagination -- or lack of imagination -- pervades contemporary culture. One of the more dubious successes of modern science -- and of its attendant spirits technology, historiography and mathematics -- is the suffusion of intellectual life with a prosaic and pedantic mind-set. One may observe this feature in almost any college classroom, not only in religious studies, but within the humanities in general. Students have difficulty in thinking, feeling and expressing themselves symbolically.

The problem is, no doubt, further amplified by the obviousness and banality of most of the television programming on which the present generation has been weaned and reared. Not only is imagination a strain; even to imagine what a symbolic world is like is difficult. Poetry is turned into prose, truth into statistics, understanding into facts, education into note-taking, art into criticism, symbols into signs, faith into beliefs. That which cannot be listed, out-lined, dated, keypunched, reduced to a formula, fed into a computer, or sold through commercials cannot be thought or experienced.

Our situation calls to mind a backstage interview with Anna Pavlova, the dancer. Following an illustrious and moving performance, she was asked the meaning of the dance. She replied, “If I could say it, do you think I should have danced it?” To give dance a literal meaning would be to reduce dancing to something else. It would lose its capacity to involve the whole person. And one would miss all the subtle nuances and delicate shadings and rich polyvalences of the dance itself.

The remark has its parallel in religion. The early ethnologist R. R. Marett is noted for his dictum that “religion is not so much thought out as danced out.” But even when thought out, religion is focused in the verbal equivalent of the dance: myth, symbol and metaphor. To insist on assigning to it a literal, one-dimensional meaning is to shrink and stifle and distort the significance. In the words of E. H. W. Meyer- stein, “Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear.” Religious expression trembles with a sense of inexpressible mystery, a mystery which nevertheless addresses us in the totality of our being.

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.

[etc]
The ironic joke in all of this is that in trying to show how Jesus was "wrong", it reveals an entirely more accurate and indideous error. A lack of meaning beyond the literalness of the words. A lack of imagination.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Matthew 13:3 And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, “Behold, the sower went out to sow; 4 and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. 5 Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. 6 But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. 8 And others fell on the good soil and *yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. 9 He who has ears, [c]let him hear.”
Jesus doesn't understand that farmers shouldn't be so dumb as to sow seeds just any old place. The farmer deserves a poor harvest if they act like that.

Mark 4:26 And He was saying, “The kingdom of God is like a man who casts seed upon the soil; 27 and he goes to bed at night and gets up by day, and the seed sprouts and grows—how, he himself does not know. 28 The soil produces crops by itself; first the blade, then the head, then the mature grain in the head. 29 But when the crop permits, he immediately [g]puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”
Jesus is saying he doesn't know how seeds work.

It's not just gardening. Jesus clearly has little knowledge about lots of things, as his parables can attest to. The parables only work if you just accept the "explanations" provided and don't actually think about it much.
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
Evidently neither of you read all of my OP, particularly where I said,

" . . .I'm talking about a rational explanation here, not some rubbish that Jesus was only talking about seeds from plants in the area,"

meaning, I'm not about to entertain any such an explanation.

.
.
I read your OP. I'm not surprised you're not open to considering anyone else's interpretation but your own.

I said nothing about "plants in the area" in a general sense -- like a region. I'm talking about plants within the actual scenario...of the seeds the man is planting, and the resulting plants.

You have to actually shift, in terms of reference, what Jesus is talking about -- from a specific reference to a specific person and the seed the man plants in the parable -- to a general reference to all things (seeds) in existence, in order to come up with the interpretation you are using.

In another post, you said Jesus was referring to all the seeds in the world, but that's not what he said. It's an interpretation you used.

Certainly. I'm serious. Presuming the scriptures are divinely inspired, god used those words and terms that best gets his message across. If some other word or term would have better done the job he would have used it. AND assuming that god is all-knowing there is no reason to suspect he mistakenly used the wrong words or terms. Therefore, when Jesus says "Though it is the smallest of all seeds,. . . . " That's what he means: Of all the seeds in the world that of the mustard plant is the smallest. HOWEVER! we know this isn't true. Jesus made a mistake in saying so. So my question is, Anyone care to explain this mistake? Could it be that god was wrong in putting these words in Jesus' mouth as he inspired the writers of the Matthew and Mark to write this verse? Or did Jesus actually utter these erroneous words?
There is no direct mention of "the smallest seed of all the seeds in the world", OR "the smallest seeds of all the seeds in the scenario (the man's field.)"

Either way, the reader brings an interpretation.

I don't see that you've demonstrated why we should shift the reference from the specific to the general in order to match your personal interpretation.

One of the benefits of parables is they're flexible to one's understanding.

In my interpretation of this, he's not wrong. He's not even saying what you say he is saying.

He's talking about the paradoxical nature of Love (the reign of God), and how what may seem the smallest thing one does in one's own life -- sow Love -- it produces the largest result -- which is of practical use, as well. (It is a place of refuge for the birds.) It works in life.

The parable works just fine for me, as is.
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Jesus doesn't understand that farmers shouldn't be so dumb as to sow seeds just any old place. The farmer deserves a poor harvest if they act like that.


Jesus is saying he doesn't know how seeds work.

It's not just gardening. Jesus clearly has little knowledge about lots of things, as his parables can attest to. The parables only work if you just accept the "explanations" provided and don't actually think about it much.
I think you're cutting the Carpenter a low blow....

parables are a technique
much like painting a picture
some people do so very well....some not

the terms of the parable are chosen
even so.....the terms flex when spoken
the terms flex when heard

people of similar technique are likely to hear and then nod
people not so inclined....are likely to critique
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
he who has ears let him hear. Most cant hear because they have elevated the mind, GREEK thinking. The mind has become GOD
Christ says that the Jews didn't have the ears (of spirit) to understand him. They used their physical ears (to create the vision of God).

John:
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

They were listening to Moses. Christ spoke by way of spirit, not man.

John 6:
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

The Jews chose Moses over Christ, even though Christ told them that he was the truth, and not Moses. They chose to have Christ crucified over the words of Moses.

The orthodox believe both Moses and Christ. But Moses never had the Holy Spirit, and Christ did. This is what made him Christ (anointed by Gods Spirit).

A Christian hears the Spirit. Not Moses, or any of those before Christ.

Matthew:
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.

The Spirit told us who to listen to. This understanding is why those who were called gnostic, were overcome by those who saw orthodoxy. Adding the OT understanding to the Gospel gave the minds of those who followed it the right to murder through calling them heretics to the idea (of orthodoxy). Which is why people like Marcion and Valentinus dropped the Hebrew scriptures from the Gospel message. Once the truth came, it destroyed the ignorance before it, dropping the veil between man and God.

The Roman catholic ideology, repaired the veil. And the priests once again hid behind it as a (false) celestial authority over man.

It's what my mind see's.
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
“Mustard bushes reach an average mature height of between 6 and 20 feet with a 20-foot spread, although exceptional plants can reach 30 feet tall under ideal conditions.”
What Is the Size of a Mustard Bush?

If you saw this while driving in the country, would you contradict a passenger who called it a tree?

dv031678_XS.jpg

Not only would I call that a tree, if it's called a mustard tree, I'd also refer to its seed as a "mustard seed".

Looks like it could provide a location for shade and rest -- not only for birds, but also for a farmer to sit under.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
As for an explanation, I'm talking about a rational explanation here, not some rubbish that Jesus was only talking about seeds from plants in the area, or that because he was speaking in a proverbial/parable style he wasn't making a statement of fact.

Wait... why aren't those rational explanations? :confused:
 
What's been most enlightening, and disappointing, is how these attempts highlight the fact that many members lack a reasonable understanding of the structure of the English language and how it works.

Namely the OP who appears to lack even the most rudimentary understanding of the conventions of rhetorical discourse.

- The kingdom of heaven is like the seed of a tropical orchid, which a man took and planted in his field.

- What's a tropical orchid boss?

- It's this plant that grows far away in other countries that you are not aware of.

- Why would I plant it in my field boss? Can I eat it?

- No. Shut your cakehole a second. I'm telling a story...

- Though it is the smallest of all seeds...

- how small is it?

- like super small, tiny. really, really small. Minuscule.

- Smaller than a mustard seed?

- Yes of course. Duhhhh!

- Anyway, Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it turns into a dainty little flower that people quite like.

- Errr... Cool story boss...

giphy.gif
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
As for an explanation, I'm talking about a rational explanation here, not some rubbish that Jesus was only talking about seeds from plants in the area, or that because he was speaking in a proverbial/parable style he wasn't making a statement of fact.
dino.png
 
Top