Why did Jesus teach in parables??

[Thomas]

Thomas I was reading some of your replies to others and I was just wondering do you believe in the Scriptures?

That's funny — I was wondering the same thing as you.

Let me make my position clear. I am Roman Catholic, so I believe in Scripture as preached, written, explained and taught by the Apostles. The faith of the Catholic Church is the faith of the Apostles.

Do you believe when Jesus said that NO man can come to the Father except through Me?

Yes.

Do you actually believe that man can choose to be saved or not?

Yes. Jesus said so. No man is forced to accept the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.

Do you believe that God's Will, WIll ALWAYS,ALWAYS be done. Not man's will.

Yes. That's why I have trouble with what you decide is doctrine and what isn't.

Thomas I' m NOT trying to offend you in anyway shape or form. I notice you have strong opinions and beliefs I am just trying to understand your position.

I notice you are quite outspoken too. But I can back up what I say with 2,000 years of constant teaching. I don't think you can.

Thomas

 

[mee]

The primary purpose of all illustrations is to teach
But the illustrations of the Bible also serve other purposes:

Illustrations moved the humble ones to ask for further explanation; the proud refused to do so.

Jesus said: "Let him that has ears listen," and though the majority of the crowds hearing Jesus went their way, the disciples would come and ask for explanation.
Mt 13:9, 36.


Illustrations can motivate persons to take action one way or another, to ‘show their true colors,’ as to whether or not they are genuine servants of God.


When Jesus said: "He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life," "many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him." In this way Jesus ‘weeded out’ those who did not really believe from the heart.—Joh 6:54, 60-66.

 

[Thomas]

with all due respect, Darren — from now on, when you make statements such as this:

No Thomas Hell in Scripture is NOT translated Gehenna.

I am going to ask you for the evidence to support your argument. Here is the evidence in support of mine:

The term 'hell' is from the Anglo-Saxon helan or behelian, "to hide". This verb has the same primitive as the Latin occulere and celare and the Greek kalyptein. Thus hell denotes a dark and hidden place. In ancient Norse mythology Hel is the ill-favoured goddess of the underworld. Only those who fall in battle can enter Valhalla; the rest go down to Hel in the underworld, not all, however, to the place of punishment of criminals.

The Latin infernus, the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol all correspond to the word hell. Infernus designates a place within and below the earth, as does Hades. Sheol is generally supposed to come from the Hebrew root meaning, "to be sunk in, to be hollow"; accordingly it denotes a pit or a place under the earth.

In the Hebrew Old Testament sheol (Septuagint hades; Vulgate infernus) is used in general to designate the kingdom of the dead, of the good (Genesis 37:35) as well as of the bad (Numbers 16:30); it means hell in the strict sense of the term, but as both just and unjust abide there, it is closer to the limbo of the Fathers, as all await the final judgement.

As it is believed the just in sheol/hell were taken into heaven at the time of Christ's Ascension, hades (Vulgate infernus) in the New Testament always designates the hell of the damned. Since Christ's Ascension the just no longer go down to the lower world, but they dwell in heaven (2 Corinthians 5:1).

However, in the New Testament the term Gehenna is used more frequently in preference to hades, as a name for the place of punishment of the damned.

Gehenna is the Hebrew gê-hinnom (Nehemiah 11:30), or the longer form gê-ben-hinnom (Joshua 15:8), and gê-benê-hinnom (2 Kings 23:10) "valley of the sons of Hinnom". Hinnom seems to be the name of a person not otherwise known. The Valley of Hinnom is south of Jerusalem and is now called Wadi er-rababi. It was notorious as the scene, in earlier days, of the horrible worship of Moloch. For this reason it was defiled by Josias (2 Kings 23:10), cursed by Jeremias (Jeremiah 7:31-33), and held in abomination by the Jews, who, accordingly, used the name of this valley to designate the abode of the damned (Targ. Jon., Gen., iii, 24; Henoch, c. xxvi). And Christ adopted this usage of the term.

So you see, I think the mistake lies in not knowing how the Jews understood the term 'gehenna', and what the term implied for them ... Jesus used the term as they understood it.

Today we translate the Hebrew into Greek, then English, then assume all manner of pagan attributions ... then we remove the pagan attributes, but we don't incorporate the contemporary Hebrew meaning.

+++

Besides Hades and Gehenna, we find in the New Testament many other names for the abode of the damned. It is called "lower hell" (Vulgate tartarus) (2 Peter 2:4), "abyss" (Luke 8:31 and elsewhere), "place of torments" (Luke 16:28), "pool of fire" (Revelation 19:20 and elsewhere), "furnace of fire" (Matthew 13:42, 50), "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12, and elsewhere), "everlasting fire" (Matthew 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7), "exterior darkness" (Matthew 7:12; 22:13; 25:30), "mist" or "storm of darkness" (2 Peter 2:17; Jude 13). The state of the damned is called "destruction" (apoleia, Phil., iii, 19, and elsewhere), "perdition" (olethros, 1 Timothy 6:9), "eternal destruction" (olethros aionios, 2 Thessalonians 1:9), "corruption" (phthora, Galatians 6:8), "death" (Romans 6:21), "second death" (Revelation 2:11 and elsewhere).

Gehanna is the fire that burned in the valley of Hinomm.

Yes, but it signified much more than that.

In English, for example, we have a saying "being sent to Coventry" — now Coventry is a very nice English town. The Germans knocked it about a bit during the war, but on the whole it's quite nice and pleasant ... so you would assume there's no great harm in that. But the phrase actually means to be excluded and ignored, to be shunned by society ... not very nice at all.

D'you see my point? Unless you know the precise useage of the term, you would make a mistake.

but the whole idea of a place where a person will be tortured with fire and brimstone for ever and ever is a man made doctrin.

I suggest, from the references above ... that it is a Scriptural doctrine. Not the Scriptural use of the term "unquenchable fire", "everlasting fire" and "eternal destruction".

Not once does Jesus teach or even say that Hell is a place where you will be sent forever and ever ... or your evil. Not once.

Yes He does, more than once ... but you have to understand the terms He uses as He means them, not as we assume them to mean. The question of non-believers is seconadary, but Christ is quite explicit that hell is real, and everlasting.

If you notice in the O.T. there is not ONE word HELL not one you wont fine hell being a place of torture after death it is UNscriptual.

Excuse me ... but I count the New Testament as Scripture, too. The references are there.

I will blow your mine now ... Does this make since to you?

Not really ... sorry.

Then we are judged and sentence either to heaven or hell were we will spent eternity. WHAT? we are sent back to where we just came what kind of god is this does this make any since not to me it sounds pretty dumb.

Then I suggest you have misunderstood?

The point being that, at Christ's coming, the New Jerusalem (Rev 3:12, 21:2) the Parousia, will initiate the general resurrection and the Last Judgement ... at which point the justified shall enter the new kingdom and occupy the station according to how they have lived their lives (some close, some distant, but all in paradisical bliss) whilst the unjust shall cease to be any longer ... so there is 'no going back' but rather then final destruction of all that which does not belong with God.

Logically it don't add up.

Then I suggest you find someone to explain it to you, rather than assume that because you don't understand it, it's wrong.

Thomas

 

[Dream]

Thomas, I appreciate the scriptures and reasoning you posted in post #47 and had gone through them. I had an interesting reply but have decided not to post, because I don't want anyone to think I'm going to support them in some kind of online emotional brawl. Truth is truth and God can always defend himself, no? I really did find your information inspiring and wish I could have continued the discussion.

 

[mee]

illustrations are effective in giving correction because they afford the hearer opportunity to do his own thinking without its being beclouded or blinded by prejudice.

In considering an illustration, which usually deals with persons other than the one being spoken to and not directly mentioning him, the individual will see that it fits his own circumstances or actions.

Then he can arrive at his own conclusion or judgment.
And he has no justifiable ground for anger, since the speaker did not accuse him directly of anything.

 

[winner08]

If someone offends let it go or ask for clarification privately. No need to let it distract from the discussion. Thomas is a smart guy who just disagrees and is being helpful. I've seen him overlook offenses before, which he probably learned from Proverbs 19:11 "it is his glory to overlook an offense". Overlooking offenses is the only oil that makes forum conversations work. If we didn't overlook offenses, most of us would hate each other inside of 5 minutes, and besides things always seem worse than they are when you're in the middle of it. Four days from now none of us will even remember where this thread was anyway.

disagreeing in a constructive way are good. being rude is not helpful it can be hurtful.

 

[winner08]

That's funny — I was wondering the same thing as you.

Let me make my position clear. I am Roman Catholic, so I believe in Scripture as preached, written, explained and taught by the Apostles. The faith of the Catholic Church is the faith of the Apostles.


Yes.


Yes. Jesus said so. No man is forced to accept the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.


Yes. That's why I have trouble with what you decide is doctrine and what isn't.


I notice you are quite outspoken too. But I can back up what I say with 2,000 years of constant teaching. I don't think you can.

Thomas

Thomas Lets agree to disagree. You are what you are and I am what I am. I believe in the way I do and You believe the way you do. So instead of boreing the people with our disagreements lets just not comment on one and others post. Do you agree with this? Do not comment on each others post. OK

 

[Dream]

Ok changed my mind. Post 47.

Hi Dream —
I suggest that's a very selective reading of Scripture, basing a belief on a couple of verses, and ignoring the context.

If you follow the logic of that argument, then even Christ Himself becomes unnecessary. If the pouring of the Holy Spirit is all that is required, then the Incarnation was not, and Jesus was not. Might I also point out that the Holy Spirit has been lavished upon man since the dawn of time ... but that does not mean He chooses to accept it, follow it, or abide by it.

+++

I'm one of many people coming to similar conclusions, more or less independently. Also, 'Holy Spirit' can fall multiple times even upon the same person. The story of Sampson and his miraculous strength is one example.

Assuming Christ wasn't wasting His time then, we have Matthew 4:19 / Mark 1:17
"And he saith to them: Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men."

Sounds like Jeremiah 16:16 "Behold, I am sending for many fishers, says the LORD, and they shall catch them; and afterwards I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain and every hill, and out of the clefts of the rocks."

Then check out Matthew 13:11, 16:16-19, 28:18; Mark 4:11, Mark 8:30; Luke 8:10; John 6:67-72 ... amongst others, which clearly indicate that Jesus intended to found a church, and that His disciples were being trained to lead it ... then, of course, John 21:16-19
"He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me."
Christ spoke of Himself as the Shepherd, and here He quite plainly and directly hands his flock to Peter.

The thing I notice is that Peter had desired to be a martyr, which is a lamb. Ritually, lambs are the preferred creature to offer as a burnt offering, so martyrs including Jesus are called 'Lambs'. Peter's task would be to feed the other lambs, instead of just being one. Although he was prepared to die for Jesus testimony, that was not his life's main task. Instead, he would grow old preparing others to do it. Three times he had to be told to understand.

In his first letter (I Peter) he spends a lot of time talking about about being a lamb like Jesus and bearing the sins of Gentiles like Jesus has done. To be a lamb is to be falsely accused of evil but to endure until it becomes obvious that you are approved of God. By this means you create faith in unbelievers, bearing their sins. In the same way Jesus bore the sins of his accusers when it became obvious he was a son of God. Referring to his followers as lambs would have brought to mind "...for thy sake we are slain all the day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter."(Psalm 44:22)

I Peter 1:18-19 You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

I Peter 2:12-24 Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles, so that in case they speak against you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Acts 2:36-37 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" ***************************************​

 

[Dream]

The assumption that Christ would establish a Church for what, some 20 or 30 years, after which it would be unnecessary? No ... I don't think so.....Yes, the apostles were commissioned to preach, to baptise and so forth ... and their successors continue to do so today.....Really? Was all Isreal converted? No. All the Gentiles? No. Then the mission is not yet complete.

I don't wish to assume. I associate the apostles with being the 'fishermen' who would go to Israel, since Jesus called them 'fishers of men'. After the fishers would come the 'hunters' (referring to Jeremiah 16:16) who I suspect is that generation of martyr lambs whom Peter would raise. A big part of this whole deal is the miracle of Hunukah in which the lamps in the temple burned without oil, symbolizing the continuance of the Holy Spirit without the works of men. It is similar to the light shining before the sun and moon in Genesis chapter 1.

It seems that if we needed the continued presence of apostles, then Jesus would not have been kept in heaven, and the reason he's not needed here is the same reason the apostles are no longer needed here. That is the whole idea of the gift of the Holy Spirit being poured out.

No, that's an illogical as well as retrospective and self-serving argument....Again, you're saying that it has to be on your terms....It would mean, at the very least, that Jesus would be some 2,000 years old, which would be pretty conclusive proof in my book, and thus undo everything God is trying to do.

It seemed illogical from the perspective of the temple priests. They also wondered why their services were no longer needed, yet the lamps burned without oil. By worldly wisdom it appeared to them as running off the deep end or rebelling with Martin Luthor and Korah, but it is really just getting out of the boat to walk on water with Jesus and speaking to rocks and mountains. The message I see is that the Son has been given to us -- to us, God with us, Christ tabernacled among us. This is does not depend upon preserving what was. "For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away."(I Cor 9-10) It is trusting in Christ being among us.

I would suggest Jesus is still needed, and is still here, and that's why he established His Church, and guaranteed it, until the end of time ... He is visible in the witness of His saints.

I think Christ is visible in the witness of Christians and Jesus Christ remains in heaven. Is that so different?

The point is clear. We accept Jesus on His terms ... and His terms are, accept thy neighbour before you even think of calling on me.

The Holy Spirit is there to help us do that ... the Spirit reveals the Son, the Son reveals the Father ... the way you have it, the Spirit is there to confirm us in our own opinions.

That may have been the attitude of Martin Luthor, but it is not mine. Our own opinions take second seat to the opinions of each other, because that is where Christ is. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."(I John 1:8) "All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us."(I John 3:24)

You quote Acts 2 at length, but you miss the important part: "What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call."
He shall call them to His church ... that is what He founded it for ... now and for ever.

"They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers."

Thomas

We should discuss the meaning of baptism.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas Lets agree to disagree. You are what you are and I am what I am. I believe in the way I do and You believe the way you do. So instead of boreing the people with our disagreements lets just not comment on one and others post. Do you agree with this? Do not comment on each others post. OK

Well, OK ... I can agree to disagree, but again, if you're going to make statements like "X is a man-made doctrine" when it's not, then I'm going to challenge it.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

After the fishers would come the 'hunters' (referring to Jeremiah 16:16)

The Church Christ established is part of the New Covenant, not the Old. The Old prepares the way for the New, but does not determine the New.

The message I see is that the Son has been given to us -- to us, God with us, Christ tabernacled among us.

But so does everyone who seeks to justify their own actions ... Christ is given, but the sign of acceptance on our part is the community the Church. Otherwise we can all say we are justified in whatever we do.

I think Christ is visible in the witness of Christians and Jesus Christ remains in heaven. Is that so different?

The Church is the visible witness.

That may have been the attitude of Martin Luthor, but it is not mine.

Actually it's not Luther's, it's an Apostolic Teaching.

Thomas

 

[Dream]

The Church Christ established is part of the New Covenant, not the Old. The Old prepares the way for the New, but does not determine the New.

"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law
within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Jesus calls his apostles fishers of men. "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb"

But so does everyone who seeks to justify their own actions ... Christ is given, but the sign of acceptance on our part is the community the Church. Otherwise we can all say we are justified in whatever we do.

Its even easier for people to say they are justified because they purchased a membership somewhere. That's as empty as physical without spiritual circumcision. Love is a true sign of acceptance and is true community.

The Church is the visible witness.

It is certainly visible, but that is no guarantee of love. If I have not love, than what good is any visible token of it?

Actually it's not Luther's, it's an Apostolic Teaching.

I was referring to your statement: "the way you have it, the Spirit is there to confirm us in our own opinions" but I had included a bit more than that in the quotes. I agree with you that we accept Jesus on his terms, and I don't think the Spirit exists to confirm us in our own opinions. I'm suggesting that Martin Luthor stepped over the line by calling all 'Katholics' antichrist.

 

[winner08]

Well, OK ... I can agree to disagree, but again, if you're going to make statements like "X is a man-made doctrine" when it's not, then I'm going to challenge it.

Thomas

OK Thomas here is a statement God will save all of mankind
John12:47 and if ANYONE hears My Words and does NOT believe I do not judge him I did not come to judge the world but to SAVE the WORLD. (save the world)

1 Cor15:22 as are in Adam ALL shall die, even so in Christ ALL shall LIVE.
John 12:32 and I am lifted up from the earth I wll draw ALL PEOPLES TO Myself.(All peoples)

Go ahead a twist these Scriptures around, Show me the scriptures that say God will not save all people, show me a scripture where it says Christ will NOT draw ALL people to Himself.

Tell me why in the O.T. God did not teach anything about a place where He will send people to be punished with fire and brimstone forever and ever? Why? Speaking of challenge I always wondered why the catholics pray to statues? Why do you pray to saints for protection or help or healing ya'll have a saint for everthing. and you pray to these statutes of stone just like the pagens You confess to a man, in a robe. Do you also believe in purgatory?

 

[lunamoth]

Speaking of challenge I always wondered why the catholics pray to statues? Why do you pray to saints for protection or help or healing ya'll have a saint for everthing. and you pray to these statutes of stone just like the pagens You confess to a man, in a robe. Do you also believe in purgatory?

Is this kind of baiting really necessary? The topic is about parables. There is no need to use this kind of ad hominem, which can only act as a diversion to the conversation at hand.

 

[Nick_A]

Winner

Go ahead a twist these Scriptures around, Show me the scriptures that say God will not save all people, show me a scripture where it says Christ will NOT draw ALL people to Himself.

What in your opinion happened to Judas? What does "doomed to destruction" mean?

John 17

12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

 

[winner08]

Winner

Go ahead a twist these Scriptures around, Show me the scriptures that say God will not save all people, show me a scripture where it says Christ will NOT draw ALL people to Himself.

What in your opinion happened to Judas? What does "doomed to destruction" mean?

John 17

Give me a some time I will have to look into the scripture. I want to make sure I get the correct understanding of your question. then I can give you your ansewer.

doom to destruction mean doom to die or death I know destruction does not mean hell for ever. but hold on I will get back to you.

 

[winner08]

Is this kind of baiting really necessary? The topic is about parables. There is no need to use this kind of ad hominem, which can only act as a diversion to the conversation at hand.

Ok wrong place for that comment I will start a new topic. but don't expect me to back down from what I know is right.

 

[winner08]

Back to parables:
Jesus Words are spirit John6:63 the word that I speak unto you they are spirit.

all parables have a spiritual lessons. Not one of Jesus parables was to be taken literally. But to understand spiritual parables and words of spirit one must have the Spirit.
Just as in the book of revelation one big parable. Jesus Christ (spirit) gives John revelation which God (spirit) gave and signified things with (spiritual meaning) by an angel (a spirit) while John was in the (spirit) and wrote Christ words (spirit) and were spoke by (The Spirit) in a book that can be understood by those with a (spiritual ear) to hear.

 

[mee]

No teacher on earth has ever been more skillful at using illustrations than was Jesus Christ.
To this day, his illustrations are easily recalled.

Why​

Jesus Taught With Illustrations​

The Bible gives two important reasons why Jesus used illustrations
First, his doing so fulfilled prophecy.
At Matthew 13:34, 35, we read: "Jesus spoke to the crowds by illustrations. Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them; that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet who said: ‘I will open my mouth with illustrations.’"

The prophet mentioned by Matthew was the writer of Psalm 78:2. That psalmist wrote under the inspiration of God’s spirit centuries before Jesus’ birth.

Consider what this means. Hundreds of years in advance, Jehovah determined that the Messiah would teach with illustrations.​

Second, Jesus explained that he used illustrations to sift out those whose hearts had "grown unreceptive." (Matthew 13:10-15; Isaiah 6:9, 10)


Jesus’ illustrations served a number of other beneficial purposes.

They aroused interest, compelling people to listen.
They painted mental images that were easy to grasp.

.​

 

[winner08]

Nick you asked (In my opinion) what happen to Judas what does doom and destruction mean? Come on Nick you know excatly what destruction means.
To fully destroy to die, perish or to lose (apollumi) Strongs .
What happen to ever human being on this earth. they die. this is what happen to Judas. HE DIED. Now there is a spiritual meaming to this. Jesus new that Judas was already spiritually dead Or was he? Jesus said He chose Judas to be the rat. So was Judas a trator like the christdom doctrine teaches. Or was He a nessery part of prophecies. I say it is the latter. (Pslams) 41:3 ya mine own famillier friend, in when I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heal aginst me.

So Judas
was and is dead in the grave where the rest of mankind who died is. and at the day of the lord (judgment he will rise and be saved just like every single person who ever live on this earth. (EVERBODY)
does this ansewer you question Nick?