Jesus’ parable of the talents
Three slaves are given money by their owner, two invest it while the third buries his share. He is castigated by his master (yes, it’s Jesus as his favourite metaphor: slave master) who says to him on his return:
I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me. (Luke 19:26-27)
I know, that last sentence doesn’t fit the rest of the story, but it tells us what a despicable s**t Jesus was, quite happy to see those who didn’t want a peasant with delusions of grandeur lording it over them exterminated. Thank God the Romans got to him first (if indeed he existed.) No-one likes a dictator, specially not another dictator.
How about the conclusion to the actual parable, the one about the slaves and the money? The talents are evidently a metaphor for something or other. According to Christianity.com, it’s that the third slave, ‘didn’t take joy in the promise of the master’s return but instead wasted his time, his opportunities, and the master’s money.’
In other words, it’s fanatic talk aimed at those with a lack of commitment to the cult and its beliefs, including the ‘master’s’ imminent return, when wastrels will be in big trouble. As Christianity.com puts it:
Those who are not (faithful) may face the harsh reality of being called a wicked and lazy servant. Worst of all, they may not share in the joy of their master’s presence when he returns.
And there we have it, the softening of Jesus’ dictatorial original: ‘will’, as in ‘will lose everything’ becomes the hedging-your-bets ‘may’ while ‘slave’ (doulos again) becomes the watered-down ‘servant’. After all, we wouldn’t want to draw attention to how much of a cruel bastard Jesus was originally conceived as being. (Because, yes, these stories were invented by the early Jesus cult.)
The cult took no prisoners; in terms of commitment. It was all or nothing. Waiver in that commitment and you risked expulsion when the slave-master returned. So much for being redeemed unto salvation, so much for salvation by grace alone. If you weren’t utterly committed you stood to lose it all. What the original cultists weren’t to know, of course, was that the master would never return. The whole sorry parable was as irrelevant then as it is now.
rejectingjesus, 
You are a mean old ex Christian atheist non believer satan type person, Neil
You deserve to be smited? Smitten? Smittened?
Jesus was adorable and based on all the old pictures he had wonderful hair.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jesus approves this message.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s your greatest fear, isn’t it Neil?
Fact is, it happened. Each of the parables in Luke 19 is prophetic. (They are pointedly speaking to the religious leaders of Jesus’ day who had by this point rejected him. The men who did not want him as king were standing right before him. The parables only by extension apply to us in the 21st century.) So what happened?
According to Josephus, they pretty much did to themselves what Jesus prophesized. As the nation – led by these men or others of their ilk – descended into chaos in the 60s. The priests and the zealots fought each other killing as many as the Romans in the war did. In other words, they were their own worst enemies. By war’s end, the priesthood was gone never to revive. The temple was gone and has been for nearly 2000 years. By 135 A.D. after another rebellion the city was gone – or they were gone from it. By this time, all that Jesus prophesized had come to pass. They thought they could mess with God and with his Messiah. They were wrong. They chose independence from God – and I guess you could say they got it.
LikeLike
What is? What’s my greatest fear according to you?
Luke’s parable – there’s only this one in Luke 19, despite your referring to parables plural – was written round about 85 CE. You can’t ‘prophesy’ about something, such as the destruction of the temple and its aftermath, that happened fifteen years earlier. That’s not prophecy, it’s recounting history. You can, however, fit ‘prophecy’ retrospectively into the mouth of your long dead hero, just as Luke does here.
Then there’s your wider interpretation of the parable. How on earth do you arrive at it? You impose an understanding of historical events on the story that it doesn’t address at all, just so you can draw the shaky conclusion that ‘you better not mess with ol’ JC’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This parable is in the story of Zacchaeus, which has another interesting detail:
Zacchaeus says:
““Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
Salvation by works, anyone?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps you have not read Ephesians 2:8.
8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are his creative work, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we can do them.
“Salvation” had come to Zaccheaus’ house by grace, BUT salvation always results in works of righteousness.
Or as James put it, “faith without works is dead.”
LikeLike
Shakey conclusion
Warning those who were enemies of the king g – which the second part of then parable is about – and visible actual demonstration of how serious that opposition is, was made vivid and sobering in the destruction of these men, or their successors, in the destruction of Jerusalem.
So how do I get to that “shaky conclusion?” By following the trail of the series of parables on the same subject with the same warning up to chapter 21 and the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.
If you recall Jesus spoke this parable on his way to Jerusalem and his crucifixion. On the way he stops and speaks this:
Now when Jesus approached and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had only known on this day, even you, the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and surround you and close in on you from every side. 44 They will demolish you—you and your children within your walls—and they will not leave within you one stone on top of another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.”
That sounds like the result of the “enemies'” opposition bad things were going to happen.
Jesus follows with the parable of the tenants (Luke 20:9-19) that warns of the same thing: opponents will be destroyed. AND the priests wanted to arrest him on the spot because they knew he was speaking about them.
And then in chapter 21 Jesus describes in more detail what would happen to the temple. (verses 20-24). And it happened as he said.
Now, it does not really matter when Luke WROTE. I think in the mid-60s. What matters is when Jesus SPOKE this warning. And that, since it is found in all three synoptic Gospels, was before any of them wrote it down. Yes. Before Mark wrote it down, for he was transcribing Peter who was speaking in Rome to Christians there BEFORE any of this happened. And of course, Peter was only repeating what he heard from Jesus, who SPOKE in about 30 AD.
LikeLike
You still haven’t told me what my greatest fear is. Is it hell? Hell no. God’s wrath? Not that either. Ceasing to exist? Nope, given I’ve no option. Please enlighten me, All Knowing One.
Of course it matters when Luke wrote. It matters even more when Mark wrote. You have no way of knowing whether Jesus said anything the gospel writers claim he did or whether they invented most of it themselves. The only evidence we have of Jesus’s supposed words are from Mark, written 40 years after the cult started, and Paul who boasts that everything the Lord told him was in visions. So, demonstrate that Jesus told this and every other parable without recourse to a hypothetical, spurious and unprovable oral tradition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
triangulation.
I worked for a time on a fire lookout tower. My job was to look for smoke. But sighting one smoke and radioing to HQ its direction from the tower did not tell anyone where it was so that men could be dispatched to the fire. The one reliable method of pinning down the location was for another tower to also identify the smoke and radio in the direction from the tower. HQ could then triangulate those two vectors and identify the exact location.
Sometimes there were three vectors, each from a different tower. That was even more precise.
In the New Testament we have four vectors. Sometimes only two of them intersect for the things Jesus said and did. Sometimes three and at times there are four. That provides a pretty precise way to identify the particular thing that Jesus said or did as authentic. And, originating prior to the Gospels themselves.
Of course, that analogy is simplistic, But no more so than your idea that Mark was copied by the other evangelists. When scholars say that they are being about as simple as possible – probably to make their point to those who cannot do the textual analysis themselves. It does sound so cut and dried, doesn’t it. But the devil is in the details. For example, there are many passages in the Gospels that are not in Mark. It happens that the parable under discussion is one that Mark does not include. In fact, there are eighteen other parables in Luke that are not in Mark.
And that is the most basic kind of analysis. Even in places where Mark and Luke include the same pericope there are differences in the details and often only a very small core that is the same.
So, “THEY COPIED FROM MARK.” is far too simple an idea.
LikeLike
greatest fear
Accountability
LikeLike
Nope. Wrong again.
LikeLike
Don:
“It’s your greatest fear, isn’t it Neil?”
Threats…that’s all you’ve got, isn’t it?
You, like all the other Trumpers and white nationalists can’t wait for your jesus to return and “kick ass”.
How does jesus portray himself in the parable?
22 “You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?”
A “hard man”…
This is jesus describing himself.
“27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
Kill them “in front of me”…this is jesus saying he wants to watch their deaths…interesting.
Sounds familiar…where have I heard this lately?
Oh yeah, Donald Trump, your new savior, talking about having his enemies killed in front of him!
No wonder your evangelical brethren love their Trump!
He’s a hard man, like jesus!
He’ll take care of your enemies:
The liberals, the gays, the trans, the commies, the judges, the blacks, the generals…
MAGA=WWJD
LikeLiked by 1 person
Threats
No. Sober warning. Like a father warning his son to watch the traffic when he crosses the road, I do not threaten danger. It is there already. I warn of it so that it might be avoided.
hard man
Yes. Jesus is talking about himself. And he is directing this part of the parable to his disciples. He gave each one a mina. It is expected that they as good stewards increase the money for the master.
Two did. One did not. The two were rewarded. The last was not rewarded but what he had was taken away from him. If the minas stand for the good news entrusted to them (all equally) and the expectation was that they were to get an increase from it (make disciples), then two of them did well. The last did not and the opportunity to get an increase was taken away, for in eternity there will be no opportunity to get an increase.
But there is no indication that he was not saved. That is another issue and is not dependent upon what we do or fail to do. It is given by grace to those who will receive it.
On the other hand, the men who did not want the nobleman to be king were a different group. They were not servants (disciples) of the nobleman. They were enemies aggressively opposed to him. It is these who will be slaughtered.
And they were. Virtually the entire priesthood was slaughtered in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The city was destroyed, and 60 years later after another rebellion all Jews were banished from Jerusalem. The country was renamed Palestine and placed under the full control of the Romans. That was pretty decisive. But there is more. Since this parable is looking forward to rewards in eternity, it also is looking forward to justice. These men – unless they repented, and some did – will suffer everlasting punishment for their opposition to the king.
And that is serious enough to warn those who oppose the king.
LikeLike
Don: Each of the parables in Luke 19 is prophetic. … According to Josephus, they pretty much did to themselves what Jesus prophesized.
A growing number of biblical scholars believe gLuke, like Acts, was written after Josephus and used his works as a source.
This makes it trivial for the author to put words in Jesus’ mouth that were “fulfilled.” It’s an old and not very original trick.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Absolutely!
And I’ll bet dollars to donuts that it will be discovered Paul was also made up character and Marcion was behind his ‘ genuine’ epistles’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You guys have pretty muddled thinking historically. I’d call it more wishful thinking than anything that is fact based.
LikeLike
Ahem. WHO exactly is wishful thinking??? Wishes are based on wants and/or desires. Facts are based on reality. and proof.
LikeLike
Then supply the facts. What I hear from Neil are opinions without factual support.
LikeLike
You know this isn’t true. I regularly support what I say with reference to the Bible itself, the work of scholars (whom you invariably dismiss out of hand) and even Christian commentators (as in my latest post deconstructing your idiosyncratic ideas about slavery). When I offer scientific facts that contradict your beliefs, you dismiss them as naturalism, the zeitgeist or as a limited way to understand reality.
You want facts? Try these:
Fact 1: humans, like all living creatures, do not survive death. Ergo, Jesus didn’t, you won’t, nor will anyone else.
Fact 2: there is no evidence for the existence of the Christian God.
Fact 3: there is no evidence the Christ, Heaven, Hell, angels, demons, Satan or the Holy Spirit exist outside the human imagination.
If you have evidence to the contrary, you are more than welcome to present it.
Oh, I remember now, you have repeatedly failed to do so. Instead, you rely on sleight of hand, obfuscation, non sequitur and wishful thinking to avoid presenting any ‘factual support’ for your beliefs. Beliefs are not facts, however much word salad you, Don, throw at them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know, Neil, that that I have repeatedly offered evidence for God.
To make it simple: Take a look around. All this came to be from nothing by itself.
That is the alternative to God, with a multitude of variations, but it boils down to that. I find that absurd. In all its variations.
A Mind that is not a part of the universe but has the power to bring the universe into reality is far more logically serious alternative. But there is always the possibility of a cosmic kid with a universe generator kit she got for Christmas. Though even that implies a mind and ability.
LikeLike
1. Where did this Mind come from? We know that the only way ‘mind’ or intelligence can exist is for it to evolve. The Mind you’re speculating about (but for which you’ve no actual evidence) must also have evolved – but from what?
2. Where does it say in your Magic Book that this Mind is outside the universe? YHWH was very much in it, savouring the smell of burning animals from his abode just above the clouds. What you’re talking about is the transcendent God of 18th century philosophers and romantic poets, not the God of the Bible who has a holiday home atop of a mountain.
Fail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where did this Mind come from?
Does it have to come from anyplace? You are talking about what we know from this univerese, but that does not mean that it is true of reality beyond this universe.
“Even before the mountains came into existence,
or you brought the world into being,
you were the eternal God.” (Ps. 90)
But really, Neil, you have never read Genesis 1? “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
That is shorthand for “everything.” So, if God created everything, he could not be one of the things he created.
LikeLike
So you find it easy to believe that God, who probably doesn’t exist, has always been around, wasn’t created, didn’t evolve, is the very essence of ‘something from nothing’ and made ‘everything’ because some bronze age priests said so.
On the other hand, you insist that the universe, which demonstrably does exist, can’t possibly have been around forever (in some form) and/or couldn’t have come from nothing.
Your beliefs are irrational, Don. You cling to them because they ‘satisfy your heart’ and you then appeal to Christian mythology to justify them. No God is required to live a happy, fulfilled life in this godless universe. You should try it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fundamental features of the universe are cause and effect and entropy. The universe could not exist without these two things. Both of them imply a beginning.
But something that is not of the same nature as the universe need not be limited by either. So, even though the universe (or multiverse) cannot be eternal, that need not be the case for something that is not of the same substance as the universe.
It would not matter if a bronze age priest said so or not. It is simple observation and logic. But it is fascinating, don’t you think, that “bronze age priests” got it right? It is also fascinating that some modern philosophers and scientists (former gamers, no doubt) propose that the universe is a simulation game https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/ which has a designer who is not part of the simulation.
LikeLike
Paragraph 1 rests, as you concede. on ‘implication’.
Paragraph 2 on conjecture. There is no evidence of ‘something that is not of the same substance as the universe.’
Paragraph 3 is fantasy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is inductive reasoning.
LikeLike
No, it’s not. It’s extrapolating from scientific speculation to arrive inexplicably at your God.
LikeLike
Would the Mona Lisa ignore the fact that she is a painting and deny the implication that there is a painter?
LikeLike
If she were sentient, which she is not, she might.
However, we know painters as an entity exist while Gods probably do not. Gravity, chemical reactions and nature do exist and are far more likely to be ‘the Blind Watchmaker’ that created the universe, life on earth and ourselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But we are sentient. And it is we who make the inference.
Gravity and chemical reaction, for which are needed elements to react, all are dependent on something that had to have been before them. And with that you are back to the conundrum of a beginning and the equal conundrum of the statistical impossibility for the most simple elements we can imagine to evolve into the complexity of a universe in which there is life like ourselves. (There is also the interesting puzzle of why it stops with us and seems to be headed toward simplicity again by entropy.) And that all by itself. It seems like this presents a problem far greater than the existence of a Mind that brought it all into being.
LikeLike
Don: All things are ‘dependent on something that had to have been before them.’
So tell me why this principle doesn’t apply to your God. Just because you say so? Because philosophers who came before you decided this had to be a characteristic of God?
Not good enough. Where is your evidence that your God is the First Cause, and not his God before him… and his God… and his God, in infinite regress?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Our vantage point is this universe and our knowledge of the nature of the material things of this universe scientifically speaking. Both are limited.
What we know of God is revealed. That too is limited to what is revealed and by our ability to understand it. So, I have no answer to your question. I can only speak to what God has revealed. And what is revealed is that God is God alone.
LikeLike
I’ve no dispute with your first paragraph, but it’s always going to be the case that ‘our vantage point is this universe’ so it doesn’t really add anything to the discussion.
Paragraph 2 is theobabble and doesn’t add anything to the discussion either. Revealed = ‘imagined in our heads’. Demonstrate otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreement between those to whom it is revealed. And that is not limited to those who have written about it.
LikeLike
That’ll be why there are 45,000 different sects and denominations within Christianity: God revealing himself differently to different groups.
And before you say he doesn’t, just reflect on whether you agree with Roman Catholics, Mormons, gay-affirming churches, Westboro Baptists, IFBs, Joel Osteen, Beth Moore etc etc, all with their very different ‘revelations’. Admit you agree with all of these and you might have a point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like I agree with every scientist who comes up with a new theory?
LikeLike
You said: Agreement between those to whom it (God’s will) is revealed (is the important thing). And that is not limited to those who have written about it.
The point is Don, there is little agreement between the numerous Christian sects, churches and denominations. You’ve made it clear you don’t agree with all or even many of those who claim a revelation different from that of your own denomination.
This is not, as you well know, the same as agreeing or disagreeing with scientists. This is disagreeing with God as heard by the church claiming the revelation.
How about providing us with a list then of the fundamentals all Christian churches, denominations and sects would sign up to and be in full agreement with?
Let me get your started:
Jesus was God. No, not all believe this.
Jesus saves. Not even this, and there certainly isn’t agreement about how he does it, nor about what he saves from and what to.
Jesus rose physically from the dead. Nope; some sects believe his resurrection was entirely spiritual.
You have a go. What is there that all 45,000 variations of the faith agree on?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a great deal more unity on the fundamental truths than you apparently realize.
LikeLike
And I’ve asked you to summarise them for us. You haven’t. You’ve merely asserted once again that they exist. Please tell us, or point us towards, what they are.
LikeLike
God IS.
God is the Creator.
God exists in three persons.
Jesus is the Son.
His death for us opened forgiveness of sins to all who trust in his sacrifice.
That is a summary of the things that virtually all Christian groups believe.
LikeLike
Your first two points are common to several religions (Judaism and Islam, for example) and are not specific to Christianity. Within Christianity, however, there are disputes about the nature of God. To some he’s primarily wrathful and vengeful, to others gentle and loving (essentially the difference between the tribal god of the Old Testament and the Heavenly Father of the New). There’s no agreement across denominations about his nature. Indeed, a minority of believers do not see him as Creator (or indeed as existing.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
Point 3: There are at least 9 major sects who reject the notion of the Trinity.(https://www.learnreligions.com/faith-groups-that-reject-trinity-doctrine-700367)
I just know your way round this is going to be ‘but they’re a minority and not real Christians’. However, they regard themselves as Christian, and you don’t get to define what is and what isn’t Christian on the basis of your criteria.
Point 4: Again, those that reject the Trinity don’t regard Jesus as the Son. Others subscribe to the idea of adoptionism, the belief expressed by Paul that Jesus was adopted by God only at his resurrection.
Point 5: You’ve had to reduce the idea of salvation to this vague statement. There are several different ways to salvation expressed in the New Testament alone. Small wonder then that there is considerable disagreement between churches about how it works; not all see it the same way (Catholics and most Protestants, for example), leading to bitter disputes and the splintering of churches and denominations.
Churches and sects can’t agree on even these ‘essential’ notions, never mind the finer points of Christian doctrine. There shouldn’t be this level of disagreement and dispute about a God who is so apparent because he ‘is’, has ‘revealed’ himself to humankind (primarily in a book) and has provided an easily understandable means of salvation. Perhaps because he’s done none of these things.
Perhaps? No, definitely hasn’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There shouldn’t be this level of disagreement and dispute about a God who is so apparent because he ‘is’,
BINGO!
It continues to amaze me that True Believers™ continue to think that non-believers are going to be convinced by their accumulation of mish-mash “reasons” why (their) god is real.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We discussed many of these before. You see the cracks. I see the glue.
But a couple of examples:
“Adoptionism” Certainly one of the mysteries is how the Father and Son (or Jesus) are related. Even in the most orthodox description, the attempt is less than satisfying. But adoptionism is not a denial of the Son. It is simply another way to explain that truth. If Paul seems to lean toward adoptionism he does not deny John 1:1. See Phil. 2:6 “who though he existed in the form of God
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself
by taking on the form of a slave,
by looking like other men,
and by sharing in human nature.”
“Salvation” The same is true of salvation. There are various ways to describe what it is and how it is received. You probably know many of the words that would be found in theology books. But in the end, they express together the whole of salvation. Sometimes a group may highlight one idea to the neglect of the other – like some do with the concept of the Son – but the differences are not contradictory, nor do they exclude one for the sake of another. They are complimentary.
The fact is God provides many different descriptions of salvation all of which are true but with some appealing to one at some stage of understanding and others to another. In the end when we no longer see things as in a distorted mirror we will exalt in the whole picture.
Meanwhile, maybe Jehovah Rapha is what you need. Or what I need – spirit, psyche, and body. I know many who do.
LikeLike
Oh, Don, this is just more theobabble: speculation, conjecture, invention. As for Jehovah-Rapha, no thanks. I don’t need ‘him’ at all. He’s as non-existent as all the other gods in the Christian pantheon.
I apologise but in approving your third comment I deleted it instead. If you have a copy please would you resend it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scientists agree, however, on the fundamental things even if they disagree on a lot of particulars. Do you consider only those who agree on all things scientists?
LikeLike
BTW, being an aficionado of literature, I think of us as part of a story written by a cosmic author.
LikeLiked by 1 person
humans, like all living creatures, do not survive death. Ergo, Jesus didn’t, you won’t and nor will anyone else.
People all over the world and from ancient times have been convinced that they do. That includes both peasants and philosophers. I wonder where they got that idea? They knew just as well as we do that the body does not survive. Yet they believed that we survive. Why?
One of those ancients, a philosopher, said this: God has put eternity (ha olam) in our hearts. That is as good as any answer. And it is true. You, I and most others have a sense of eternity that stretches out beyond time and this universe of material things. We may deny it and count it as a superstition. We may ignore it. But it is what makes man unique, and ignoring it is foolish. Understand it.
LikeLike
What people believe is not evidence that it is so.
Fail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That sword cuts both ways. Believing in Naturalism doesn’t make it so. But most people don’t just *believe*. They believe for a reason. They believe on the basis of the evidence they have. Or they believe for personal reasons. They just don’t like the idea.
We are at a place in history where the evidence should be stacking up for one of our beliefs or the other. Even if the ultimate question is not solved, there should be some sense of which way the evidence is leading. But as I have followed the arguments (not evidence) from scientists for a wholly natural universe, I am not impressed. Not the least of which is a statistically impossible scenario. They can only make sense if you wave off the serious problems with a lot of wishful thinking.
The greatest deficit in the Scientific-materialism view is that it doesn’t satisfy the heart. I know that is hard for you to understand, and it seems like I am talking about “feelings.” But I am not. I am talking about scientific-materialism’s failure to match the human need to make sense out of life. It is an existential leap into the dark.
Yes. It is possible to make your peace with the pointlessness of scientific-materialsm. You have. But I doubt many can. We are not made that way. Which should be a clue that there is something wrong with that worldview. It does not fit us.
On the other hand, God does satisfy the human heart, and he always has for those who have sought him.
LikeLike
Yet they believed that we survive. Why? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO!! Plain and simple. NO ONE wants to die so whatever “belief” satisfies that individual’s fantasies about overcoming death is taken as truth.
Atheists recognize this and have learned to face death without the fantasies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why do people want to survive?
LikeLike
No … what you hear from Neil is unbiased (“Characterized by a lack of partiality”) content that your indoctrination won’t allow you to accept.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What in the world is “content?” A sixth grader can write content. A sixth grader has opinions. What is needed is facts.
LikeLike
TRUE! And we’re still awaiting them from you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is your blether but ‘content’? You’re playing with semantics again, Don.
LikeLike
Don:
“You know, Neil, that that I have repeatedly offered evidence for God.”
So xtianity is not a faith-based religion?
LikeLike
Don:
“Take a look around. All this came to be from nothing by itself.”
You are woefully ignorant of science…no one says “all of this came to be from nothing”…nor “by itself”.
All of this came from physics and chemistry.
Here’s an example Don:
A snowflake…formed in chaos, is shaped into a hexagram by forces that we understand…what designer did that?
Physics.
Don:
“That is the alternative to God, with a multitude of variations, but it boils down to that. I find that absurd.”
That’s called an “argument from ignorance”, Don.
You can’t understand how this happened, so it must be a god…your god.
Don:
“A Mind that is not a part of the universe but has the power to bring the universe into reality is far more logically serious alternative”
What?
How does your proposal even come close to using “logic”?
A mind that is not part of the universe?
Where do you get this?
LikeLike
Yes, absolutely. But will Don listen or will he send another sermonette about how it must be his God because that’s what makes him happiest? Time will tell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don:
“People all over the world and from ancient times have been convinced that they do. That includes both peasants and philosophers. I wonder where they got that idea? They knew just as well as we do that the body does not survive. Yet they believed that we survive. Why?”
People all over the world and from ancient times believed that the sun orbited the earth, too…
I wonder where they got that idea?
Guess what?
THEY WERE WRONG!
LikeLike
Don:
“the equal conundrum of the statistical impossibility for the most simple elements we can imagine to evolve into the complexity of a universe in which there is life like ourselves.”
Don:
“ Not the least of which is a statistically impossible scenario”
You keep using the term:
“Statistical impossibility”…
Please explain what you’re talking about using the statistics!
I think you’re bullshitting here and I’m calling you out in it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I’ve said before…Don is a liberal xtian whose views would get him kicked out of most evangelical churches here in the south.
To say that different view of jesus are all the same is total heresy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like I said, when it was written is not as important as when it was spoken. Even if you could prove Luke borrowed from Josephus – for which I find no real evidence – he did not borrow the parables under discussion. You can see my reply to Neil on this subject.
LikeLike
It seems a pretty accurate prediction of current monetary conditions. The rich get richer
LikeLike
Language is funny, isn’t it. We who have made the study of language and literature should know that better than anyone. But anyone with a dictionary – sad there are so few actual paper and ink dictionaries around these days – can discover one quirk of language easily: the same word can mean different things.
Take the word doulos, for example. We know from how it was used in the Bible and how douloi were described in history that doulos might mean slave in the worst possible condition, or it could mean a servant who we today would not call a slave at all. Yeah.
Or it could mean a bond-slave who was a slave by choice.
In most cases in the New Testament when Paul uses the doulos about himself, he means it as one who is voluntarily a slave. In the case of the parable you quote, the slaves there were of that kind. They were voluntary slaves. They definitely were not in the “enemies” category.
Why would anyone voluntarily choose to be a slave? Because the master is good, the benefits are satisfying, and the alternative is unbearable.
And that is why I choose to be a doulos of the Lord.
LikeLike
Don:
“sad there are so few actual paper and ink dictionaries around these days”
Why?
You can find unlimited dictionaries online at the touch of a finger.
Why are you trying to sell buggy whips?
You have just revealed how much of a Trumper you are:
Every time Trumpers find out that I’m an elementary school teacher, they ALWAYS ask:
“You don’t teach cursive any more, do you?”
And I always reply, “yes, we do, but “why”?
Why do you need to learn cursive?
We’ll, I found out that there’s a meme going around among Trumpers that schools have an agenda to NOT teach cursive because the original founding father’s documents are written in cursive, and that’s a way to keep children from reading the constitution.
How stupid!
THEY don’t have a copy of the constitution written in cursive.
You sound just like them!
LikeLike
And you sound young. I use online dictionaries, but there was a lot more in an ink and paper dictionary than the definition of the word.
LikeLike
Don:
“ or it could mean a servant who we today would not call a slave at all.”
No, I don’t think most readers of the passages think that.
Your liberal interpretation of the word Doulos doesn’t fly.
LikeLike
SIDENOTE: I am getting thoroughly disgusted with WordPress!! I try to “like” a comment and it won’t let me without “registering” — but then it won’t let me “register!” I’ve even started using the Reader, but sometimes the comment I’m looking for isn’t shown!! 😠😡🤬
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tough to face but perhaps they just don’t like you anymore?
LikeLike
I might agree EXCEPT for the fact that several others have complained about the same thing. So be nice!
LikeLike
Fear not, dear heart, no matter how nasty WordPress are I love you to bits!
🥰
LikeLiked by 1 person
You got it to work!
LikeLike
For the moment. EVERYDAY it’s been the same thing over and over again on nearly every blog I visit, The only difference seems to be if the blog owner has their own domain — those that host with WordPress will let me “like” and comment without “registering.” In an event — VERY frustrating!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
WordPress is frustrating to use too. With every (unnecessary) update it becomes ever more uncooperative.
I own, as in pay for, the domain for rejectingjesus but obviously that doesn’t make adding likes any easier. Maybe the next update will sort the problem. Maybe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or add more!
LikeLike
Pingback: Jesus Shows How To Treat Slaves | Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in His Father's glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done.