WVIncagold

But wouldn't god in his infinite wisdom foresaw this "modern eye" since he allows predicting futures as argued by sugar and arnaldo? Or is the lack of ability for the earlier prophets to see "modern eyes" therefore show they cannot predict, let alone a large change in moral values?(Considering the sacrifice of animals to negate sin) Try being a skepie when your told that everything the bible means it doesn't say and everything it says it doesn't mean then you will know frustration. I am still waiting on the primer that gives a quick reference to when a horse is a horse and not a unicorn or a weapon or a tank. Here is the problem when you try to bring old archaic values into a world that no longer subscribes to outmoded morals and foundations. Most people today couldn't sacrifice and animal or even know where to go buy one.

WishboneDawn

Can you tell me how Judas died?

gstafleu

It is not the people who don't increase the money who should be killed. The story is a bit confused, so perhaps Luke is patching together some things. Here is what I gather from the NKJV. Perhaps the Greek tells a different story?

First, a noble man M, who currently resides in country C1, goes off to another country, C2, to be made king there, after which he will return to C1. Before leaving C1, he gives his servants (residents of C1) money. M then sets off to C2, whose citizens don't want him, but apparently still gets the kingship. Then he returns to C1 to see what his servants did with the money. He isn't impressed with the C1 servant who just buried it, but doesn't do anything bad to the guy. The people who should be killed are those who didn't want M as king, i.e. C2 citizens. (This assumes that 26-27 is spoken by M, not by Jesus. Even if it was spoken by Jesus, it is still not the people who don't increase the money that should be killed, but the ones who don't want him (in this case Jesus) as king.)

Now this seems to me to be a bit of a mess, does the Greek help? If this were Mark it could have been that C1=Galilee, C2= Judah/Jerusalem, that might make some sense. But wouldn't one in Luke expect C1=C2?

Gerard Stafleu

reniaa

He does exactly what you say but you find it in Jesus's words in the NT but you guys know you can only stick to oT stuff as you know you wouldn't be able to find fault with jesus's humanitarian words. He argues in a modern way looking at motives and reasons behind the protection of laws but it always gets bypassed in these forums, If we discuss jesus it's always his existence and what he speaks is always overlooked almost as if you are afraid to go there?

reniaa

Judas iscariot? he hung himself on a tree didn't he overwhelmed by guilt? why you ask?

reniaa

and this proves my point the whole simplicity of a parable is lost in over analysing it /sigh

mg01

But the answer of course is because the 4 we have "won" because they were right. How do we know? Well the text tells us of course! (Or more acurately, the tradition that developed surrounding the text)

This is the "theisticly guided history" argument. "Sure there were lots of traditions, but since ours survived it's the right one. Everyone else is wrong." The fact that it won by either supressing or ostracizing "heretical" views, or through force as in the destuction of the Greek gymnasiums, or by taking a "can't beat them join them" attitude and co-opting other traditions, is all just a minor detail. You can bring up any idea that speaks against the claim but there is an apologetic answer for every one.

Not to mention all the known different "flavors" of the 4 NT gospels that are known that show their own evolutionary process of development.

Sheshbazzar

Riiiiight....we aren't supposed to try to make any sense out what he was allegedly trying to say? or make any efforts to comprehend what (ever) point it was that he was allegedly trying to get across?
Because to try to understand just what it was that he was is saying, is "over analysing it"?
Nooooo, I suppose everyone that listens is just supposed to suspend all reason, and shut all down thought process and just shout "AMEN" while pounding each other on the back?
Been there, done that. No more.

reniaa

The guy to ask on forums about this is Roger pearce he can explain how original gospels and books were chosen, the appocrypha are later 2nd century writing from a particular copy-cat religious groups among others which as we know from mormons can happen.

reniaa

I have no problem with seeing the relevance of a guy going away leaving the men in his employ with responsibilities and money to take care of and in fact 2 use it and create more putting it to practical uses and get praised but the third does nothing burying it in fear so the boss is angry with him when he returns.

It's easily seen as a reference jesus himself going away and returning as king as well as the practical uses his followers put the words he leaves them with in the meantime. but beyond that who the the people are why the and wherefore of the money amounts etc are just the peripheral points and nothing to do with the meaning.