-
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!
Why did Jesus speak in parables?
- Thread starter Surrealgurl
- Start date
Corban
Member
"That may be true however in the unlikely event the Bible was written by men alone, the same men who were proclaimed to be prophets, the same men who probably established the church and sent other men out to continue more of the same.
I find it amazing that you don't even bother to consider all these things were made by men and men alone."
I have considered that, it is necessary to consider something is false if one is really trying to find out if it is true. and in this process i decided to accept it as true. now it must be pointed out, i do not have a perfect knowledge of this, but i do believe in the things i have learned i believe in the feelings i have had and the experiences i have had, and i choose to continue following them and continuing to grow in that belief
"Yet, sets me up for immediate and everlasting failure by not agreeing with him. In other words, he quite literally puts a gun to my head.[/QUOTE]
no, the gun can only be to your head if God exists and His teachings are true, if they are false then you have nothing to worry about. and if God exists the gun only exists if we reject true principles, because then you would have to be subject to the consequence of disobeying. So find out if God lives, if He does, follow Him, if not you have nothing to worry about
I find it amazing that you don't even bother to consider all these things were made by men and men alone."
I have considered that, it is necessary to consider something is false if one is really trying to find out if it is true. and in this process i decided to accept it as true. now it must be pointed out, i do not have a perfect knowledge of this, but i do believe in the things i have learned i believe in the feelings i have had and the experiences i have had, and i choose to continue following them and continuing to grow in that belief
"Yet, sets me up for immediate and everlasting failure by not agreeing with him. In other words, he quite literally puts a gun to my head.[/QUOTE]
no, the gun can only be to your head if God exists and His teachings are true, if they are false then you have nothing to worry about. and if God exists the gun only exists if we reject true principles, because then you would have to be subject to the consequence of disobeying. So find out if God lives, if He does, follow Him, if not you have nothing to worry about
Corban
Member
(Q) said:
excellent question, if they say different things they can not all be true. Use that intellegence you have and start to sift through, also pray to God to help you sift. if you find one you feel good about, logically and also have good feelings about then listen more and study more, start to apply those teachings and see if they are good.
Lightkeeper
Well-Known Member
Please get back on topic. The question was why did Jesus explain the parables only to his disciples and not to the general public.
I have considered that, it is necessary to consider something is false if one is really trying to find out if it is true. and in this process i decided to accept it as true.
So, irregardless of the inconsistencies, contradictions and fabrications, you still accepted the Bible as truth? Sorry, but I see no process in that.
you have nothing to worry about
... except for those who believe in imaginary gods, of course.
if you find one you feel good about
Unfortunately, after listening awhile, one quickly realizes they are all raving lunatics.
So, irregardless of the inconsistencies, contradictions and fabrications, you still accepted the Bible as truth? Sorry, but I see no process in that.
you have nothing to worry about
... except for those who believe in imaginary gods, of course.
if you find one you feel good about
Unfortunately, after listening awhile, one quickly realizes they are all raving lunatics.
A strange response from someone who demonstrates such little understanding of the Tanach and Midrash. Had you known half of what you pretend to know you would have noted, at the very least, that Luke 8:9 is a reference to Isaiah 6:9.Ronald said:
Be that as it may, and no matter what the providence of the parables, I see no reason to attribute the appended reference to Jesus. It sounds very much like Luke up to his gonads in the transition from Jerusalem-based Jewish sect to Rome-based gentile cult, replete with a gnostic tinge that would become far more apparent in John. It reads as early 2nd century propaganda, as does the rest of Luke's absurd anti-Pharisiac pericopes.
Shabbat Shalom
Surrealgurl
Member
Mark 4:10-12
But, when he was in private...the twelve asked him the meaning of the parable. And he said, "You are permitted to know the secrets of the kingdom of God. But to those outside, these things are said in parables, so that they may see but not perceive, and may hear but not understand. Otherwise, they would be converted, and their sins would be forgiven"
Here Jesus is admitting that he uses parables to intentionally disguise his messages in order to deceive some people so they would not be saved!
But, when he was in private...the twelve asked him the meaning of the parable. And he said, "You are permitted to know the secrets of the kingdom of God. But to those outside, these things are said in parables, so that they may see but not perceive, and may hear but not understand. Otherwise, they would be converted, and their sins would be forgiven"
Here Jesus is admitting that he uses parables to intentionally disguise his messages in order to deceive some people so they would not be saved!
linwood
Well-Known Member
"But my question was why did he only want his disciples to understand? Why didn't he want everyone to understand?"
Because if they truly understood they wouldn`t believe.
"Lu 8:10
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to
others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Doesnt make much sense to me."
It makes perfect sense if you`re promoting a sham.
Because if they truly understood they wouldn`t believe.
"Lu 8:10
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to
others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Doesnt make much sense to me."
It makes perfect sense if you`re promoting a sham.
Lightkeeper said:
Knowledge of a principle of the Gospel means responsibility to live up to that principle. If you do not know that it is wrong to have pre-marital sex then you are not responsible for obeying that law. Once you understand it, however, you become liable to it. Christ knew that certain people were incapable of living up to the standards He was setting, so He masked them in parables to protect them in their ignorance. The spiritually mature would understand and live up to the principles being taught. This is one of the reasons.
Another is the fact that so many different levels of comprehension of certain principles can be obtaiend through the use of parables. Christ taught people of all levels of understanding with very few parables. The Gospel is simple enough for the most simple-minded, and deep enough for the most intellectual. His parables crossed the spectrum of complexity; from the most general to the most sublimely intricate.
Another reason is the simple fact that Oriental peoples tended to speak with much more flavor and imagery in that time. We, as occidental people, are used to an analytical and jejune vernacular, but they communicated through stories, pictures and anecdotes. You can still talk to someone from an eastern culture and feel like they're painting you an elaborate picture in your mind especially for you.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Well Dan, it's in the dictionary.
"Irregardless" is a colloquial joining of "irrespective" and "regardless." It has only become prevelant in the last fifty years or so. It is in the dictionaries along with "ain't" and a bunch of other words that only exist because people who don't know any better refuse to let them die. If you take a linguistics course or a college English course they will pound into you that this word is not an acceptable substitution for "regardless." If'n y'all wanna use that there word you jis go right ahead, but know that ya used to couldn't get away with it, back when things was differnt and people talked good. Ahight?
It has nothing to do with the thread (I apologize) but I remember my Englsih professors getting on everyone's case about using that word, and I'd never actually seen it used by anyone until now. I just wanted to point that out. I apologize.
It has nothing to do with the thread (I apologize) but I remember my Englsih professors getting on everyone's case about using that word, and I'd never actually seen it used by anyone until now. I just wanted to point that out. I apologize.
It's funny, the word "irregardless", etymologically, means the exact opposite of what you use it to mean.
You're right in saying that the word "exists." It's right there on the screen. It exists. Does it have a legitimate claim to a place in your vocabulary? Of course not.
I said I'd never seen it used because I never saw the writings of someone who didn't know better than to use it.
From the Etymological Dictionary:
irregardless - an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from 1912, probably a blend of irrespective and regardless. Perhaps inspired by the double negative used as an emphatic.
From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
ADVERB:
Nonstandard Regardless.
ETYMOLOGY:
Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.
USAGE NOTE:
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative irÐ prefix and Ðless suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
You're right in saying that the word "exists." It's right there on the screen. It exists. Does it have a legitimate claim to a place in your vocabulary? Of course not.
I said I'd never seen it used because I never saw the writings of someone who didn't know better than to use it.
From the Etymological Dictionary:
irregardless - an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from 1912, probably a blend of irrespective and regardless. Perhaps inspired by the double negative used as an emphatic.
From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
ADVERB:
Nonstandard Regardless.
ETYMOLOGY:
Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.
USAGE NOTE:
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative irÐ prefix and Ðless suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Listen dan, society has decided that irregardless is a word, just as they have decided that forte shall be pronounced 'for-tay' no matter which definition you're implying. Languages evolve along with the people who speak them. If you don't like it, fine, no one's making you talk a certain way. However, to make a big deal of such things will eventually separate you from society, because the fact of the matter is that no one really cares. People say 'irregardless' because to them, that's what sounds right.
If languages didn't evolve, and if slang didn't become mainstream, we'd still be saying crap like 'hither and thither' or 'thee and thou'. In fact, this makes you look like a bit of a hypocrite--if you're such a purist, why don't you speak the old original English?
If languages didn't evolve, and if slang didn't become mainstream, we'd still be saying crap like 'hither and thither' or 'thee and thou'. In fact, this makes you look like a bit of a hypocrite--if you're such a purist, why don't you speak the old original English?
Lightkeeper
Well-Known Member
***Mod Post***
I have started a new thread in Off Topic, "Is irregardless a word?" Please stay on topic here.
I have started a new thread in Off Topic, "Is irregardless a word?" Please stay on topic here.
Christ knew that certain people were incapable of living up to the standards He was setting, so He masked them in parables to protect them in their ignorance. The spiritually mature would understand and live up to the principles being taught.
So, keep the ignorant... ignorant, rather than have them understand? And those without the "spiritual maturity," whatever that's supposed to mean, to understand are left to struggle on their own, irregardless of the apparent consequences?
Let no one state you aren't a wealth of contradiction, Dan.
So, keep the ignorant... ignorant, rather than have them understand? And those without the "spiritual maturity," whatever that's supposed to mean, to understand are left to struggle on their own, irregardless of the apparent consequences?
Let no one state you aren't a wealth of contradiction, Dan.