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.
Maybe if you want to use white out you could come away with that belief. Yet if you read the full context of verse eleven, Jesus tells His Tweleve that the secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables.
Exactly - everything is said in parables. Not only everything about the kingdom of God, but everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Parables contain the secrets of God's kingdom.
No, not all of them. The story of the good Samaritan is ostensibly about being a good neighbour, and not about the kingdom of God, yet Jesus still taught it as a parable. As I say, everything that he told to the public, or outsiders, was in parable.
If it was only the kingdom of God that was preached in parable, why would the gospel later have said, without mentioning any 'kingdom of God' context, that 'he did not say anything to them without using a parable' (Mark 4:34)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Jesus taught in parables, yet there are numerous examples of Jesus having conversations with others where He did not use parables. When Marthas brother died, Jesus told her that He was the resurrection and the life, and that whoever believed in Him would live forever. This was not stated in a parable, but Jesus was stating a fact of His power, and His reality. Many examples could be given of Jesus speaking to others without the use of parables.
Two points here:
1. When Jesus spoke to Martha, he was not speaking publicly, but privately to a fellow insider. It is only Jesus' public teachings that Mark's gospel says were all in parable.
2. You claim that 'this was not stated in a parable', but how do you know? You are merely making a presumption. In fact, I can tell you that Jesus' claim here to be 'the resurrection and the life' was indeed a parable, and John's gospel gives multiple clues as to what this parable means. If you cannot see the parable, then I'm afraid you are missing the main point of the story.
Exactly - everything is said in parables. Not only everything about the kingdom of God, but everything.
No, not all of them. The story of the good Samaritan is ostensibly about being a good neighbour, and not about the kingdom of God, yet Jesus still taught it as a parable. As I say, everything that he told to the public, or outsiders, was in parable.
If it was only the kingdom of God that was preached in parable, why would the gospel later have said, without mentioning any 'kingdom of God' context, that 'he did not say anything to them without using a parable' (Mark 4:34)?
Two points here:
1. When Jesus spoke to Martha, he was not speaking publicly, but privately to a fellow insider. It is only Jesus' public teachings that Mark's gospel says were all in parable.
2. You claim that 'this was not stated in a parable', but how do you know? You are merely making a presumption. In fact, I can tell you that Jesus' claim here to be 'the resurrection and the life' was indeed a parable, and John's gospel gives multiple clues as to what this parable means. If you cannot see the parable, then I'm afraid you are missing the main point of the story.
One could make an arguement for Martha as an insider, how ever you could not make that same arguement for the woman at the well that was from Samaria. Story found in John 4. Jesus spoke to her not in a parable, but openly. She was neither an insider, or a believer. She had a conversation with Jesus. To suggest that Christ only spoke to non believers in parables is simply to ignore all the conversations Christ had with others, in which Christ did not speak to them in parables.
One could make an arguement for Martha as an insider, how ever you could not make that same arguement for the woman at the well that was from Samaria. Story found in John 4. Jesus spoke to her not in a parable, but openly. She was neither an insider, or a believer. She had a conversation with Jesus. To suggest that Christ only spoke to non believers in parables is simply to ignore all the conversations Christ had with others, in which Christ did not speak to them in parables.
Jesus did speak to the woman at the well in parable. He said 'whoever drinks the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring which will provide him with life-giving water and give him eternal life' (John 4:14).
Jesus certainly wasn't talking about literal water, as a drink of this does not prevent thirst for eternity (nor indeed preserve life for eternity); and anyone who had been given water by Jesus would not have had a literal 'spring' come up in him. People are now so used to the parable that they read in the gospel that they do not notice that it is parable.
Aside from this, there is no reason why we should conclude that the woman was 'neither an insider, or a believer'. Indeed, verse 27 gives us a subtle clue in this respect.
To suggest that Christ did not only speak to non-believers in parables is simply to ignore what Christ himself and the gospel writers said about him.
There is so much more to be learned from unexpected parables in the gospels. If you want to learn new things about Christ, I would suggest trying the book 'The Judas Secret', which is very helpful in leading people through this process.
Yada,yada, yada . . to the OP . . . when your impact lasts for more the 2000+ years you MIGHT be qualified to discuss what failure is. Otherwise . . . it is a nonsensical statement.
Jesus did speak to the woman at the well in parable. He said 'whoever drinks the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring which will provide him with life-giving water and give him eternal life' (John 4:14).
Jesus certainly wasn't talking about literal water, as a drink of this does not prevent thirst for eternity (nor indeed preserve life for eternity); and anyone who had been given water by Jesus would not have had a literal 'spring' come up in him. People are now so used to the parable that they read in the gospel that they do not notice that it is parable.
Aside from this, there is no reason why we should conclude that the woman was 'neither an insider, or a believer'. Indeed, verse 27 gives us a subtle clue in this respect.
To suggest that Christ did not only speak to non-believers in parables is simply to ignore what Christ himself and the gospel writers said about him.
There is so much more to be learned from unexpected parables in the gospels. If you want to learn new things about Christ, I would suggest trying the book 'The Judas Secret', which is very helpful in leading people through this process.
I must agree with you. Jesus did speak to her in a parable. Yet I believe the fact that she did not know who Jesus was, would of made her an outsider. The point of the matter was, Jesus did speak to people without the use of parables. And this could be seen when the centurion ask if Christ would heal His servant. Matthew 8:5 to 13. It could be seen when Christ healed the man of leprosy in Matthew 8:1 to 3. Numerous other examples could be given. Christ taught in parables, yet often spoke to people without using parables.
I must agree with you. Jesus did speak to her in a parable.
Thank you for being gracious. It is rare on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
The point of the matter was, Jesus did speak to people without the use of parables. And this could be seen when the centurion ask if Christ would heal His servant. Matthew 8:5 to 13. It could be seen when Christ healed the man of leprosy in Matthew 8:1 to 3.
These are interesting examples, as I have good information that both people were very much 'insiders'. The evidence for this is too complicated to go into in a post, but Fromings explains the importance of the 'leper' in some detail in chapter 5 of 'The Judas Secret'. This man was a central figure within the early Church.
To get back to the thread title, my assertion is that most gospel quotes from Jesus have an element of parable in them, especially the comments addressed to the crowd, and even the ones that look like plain speaking. It is therefore wrong to claim that Jesus was a failure because of Christians today not following everything that he said in the literal sense.
Yada,yada, yada . . to the OP . . . when your impact lasts for more the 2000+ years you MIGHT be qualified to discuss what failure is. Otherwise . . . it is a nonsensical statement.
You are missing the point. It is raising the very valid question of whether the Jesus as depicted in the gospels (I am not considering the failed Jewish messiah theory) has achieved what one would have expected if it was all some godly plan.
That Jesus' teachings have been perverted by Roman Imperialism into the Church of constantine and the various spin -offs is itself an argument for failure, for all that they have been failures that have lasted for hundreds of years.
Kingship is even older than that, but kingship has been found wanting, too. Now religion is also found wanting.
Jesus was a man that honored the Christ spirit He was endowed with at birth.. All men are endowed with the same spirit (e.g.Christlike). Humans only fail because they don't believe in the Christ spirit. Christianity has 2 basic rules taught by Jesus: Love God with all your mind, heart and soul and love your neighbor as thyself. He *followed* through honoring both commandments even while he was being crucified by those who didn't believe in the power of love.
How about a brief summary...
Jesus spoke in parables, like some secret code, which very few understand.
Maybe his message was not meant to be understood.
Christianity has been around for 2,000 years. That's true. Beliefs die hard. The longevity of a belief doesn't mean it's true.
My point was that the people who profess to be followers of Christ (and call themselves Christians) have little idea of what Jesus taught. So, as a teacher, Jesus was a failure. If would be the same if you took a biology class and, at the end of the semester, failed the test. And yet, wanted to be called a biologist! Was the fault of the instructor? Maybe. Jesus had many good ideas, but he was not effective in communicating his ideas.
Could it be that the teachings of Jesus interfere with what christians want to do? Most want to throw stones, although Jesus make a specific remark about that. But that teaching is never mentioned, probably intentionally, not out of ignorance.
This casts a shadow (of pretentious phoniness) on those who claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus.
In fact, I don't have any trouble with the parables now. Since I have come to the conclusion that they were written by Paulinist Christians and were never spoken by Jesus every one of them makes perfect sense.
I would welcome a thread on explaining the parables acording to that only -a - theory.
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.
