Another verse that blows ME out of the water

[Lacy Evans]

deleted
withdrawn

 

[npetreley]

Did James Newman just admit that he is not serving the same God as TCGreek?

That's what it sounds like to me, although I only see that part of the quote.

 

[James_Newman]

That's what it sounds like to me, although I only see that part of the quote.

Proverbs 18:13
13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

 

[Lacy Evans]

That's what it sounds like to me, although I only see that part of the quote.

Are you peeking? Cheeky ME looker!

 

[James_Newman]

Are you peeking? Cheeky ME looker!

Might have to start a thread on the subtle difference between ignoring and ignorant. :laugh:

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Originally Posted by TCGreek
1. When Jesus gives the interpretation to a parable that he related, that I can live with.

2. But when someone, comes along and say this is how a parable must be interpreted to fit a theology imposed upon the text of Scripture, well, that's another thing.

3. I pitched my tent with the likes of Fee and Stuart, and Stein and many others who teach that a parable conveys one basic idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by James Newman
Then I can't help you. You have your higher authorities, I have mine.

 

[James_Newman]

Originally Posted by TCGreek
1. When Jesus gives the interpretation to a parable that he related, that I can live with.

2. But when someone, comes along and say this is how a parable must be interpreted to fit a theology imposed upon the text of Scripture, well, that's another thing.

3. I pitched my tent with the likes of Fee and Stuart, and Stein and many others who teach that a parable conveys one basic idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by James Newman
Then I can't help you. You have your higher authorities, I have mine.

If it helps you out, the authorities I was referring to were the likes of Fee and Stuart, and Stein and many others who teach something that blah blah blah.

 

[TCGreek]

IMO it's a very interesting subject in itself, the interpretation of parables. Where do we get our principles of interpretation? Does the bible itself, and Jesus Himself, not teach us how to interpret them? If not, we're kind of grasping at straws in the dark...

1. Let's do a little biblica math based on Matt 18:24-35:

a. The first slave owed 10, 000 talents. A talent was 6,000 denarii in those days. Now a denarius represented a day's wage. A talent represents 15 years' of a laborer's wages.

b. The second slave only owed the first slave three month's wages.

2. Well, we know what transpired: the first slave mistreated a fellow slave and his Lord handed him over to tormentors until he should repay all that was owed him.

3. Now, if I follow your interpretive principle, this slave would be tormented for the number of years one gets when the math is done for 10, 000 talents worth of years. Let me know when you would have passed 1000yrs in torment.

 

[Lacy Evans]

1. Let's do a little biblica math based on Matt 18:24-35:

a. The first slave owed 10, 000 talents. A talent was 6,000 denarii in those days. Now a denarius represented a day's wage. A talent represents 15 years' of a laborer's wages.

b. The second slave only owed the first slave three month's wages.

2. Well, we know what transpired: the first slave mistreated a fellow slave and his Lord handed him over to tormentors until he should repay all that was owed him.

3. Now, if I follow your interpretive principle, this slave would be tormented for the number of years one gets when the math is done for 10, 000 talents worth of years. Let me know when you would have passed 1000yrs in torment.

Yeah I have a comment. Uh . . .What?

". . .and everywhere I go, there's always something to remind me of another place and time."

 

[npetreley]

1. Let's do a little biblica math based on Matt 18:24-35:

a. The first slave owed 10, 000 talents. A talent was 6,000 denarii in those days. Now a denarius represented a day's wage. A talent represents 15 years' of a laborer's wages.

b. The second slave only owed the first slave three month's wages.

2. Well, we know what transpired: the first slave mistreated a fellow slave and his Lord handed him over to tormentors until he should repay all that was owed him.

3. Now, if I follow your interpretive principle, this slave would be tormented for the number of years one gets when the math is done for 10, 000 talents worth of years. Let me know when you would have passed 1000yrs in torment.

What this tells me is that if I open a Nicky's Discount Torture House, I'lll make a killing, so to speak.

 

[James_Newman]

1. Let's do a little biblica math based on Matt 18:24-35:

a. The first slave owed 10, 000 talents. A talent was 6,000 denarii in those days. Now a denarius represented a day's wage. A talent represents 15 years' of a laborer's wages.

b. The second slave only owed the first slave three month's wages.

2. Well, we know what transpired: the first slave mistreated a fellow slave and his Lord handed him over to tormentors until he should repay all that was owed him.

3. Now, if I follow your interpretive principle, this slave would be tormented for the number of years one gets when the math is done for 10, 000 talents worth of years. Let me know when you would have passed 1000yrs in torment.

All this time I thought you were a greek geek. I had no idea you were also a mathematician, an economist, and a legal expert too. Your quite the renaissance man. Why do you reject Jesus' example for the interpretation of biblical parables? Where did your Fee, Stuart and Stein get their interpretive principle if they didn't find it in the bible?

 

[TCGreek]

All this time I thought you were a greek geek. I had no idea you were also a mathematician, an economist, and a legal expert too. Your quite the renaissance man. Why do you reject Jesus' example for the interpretation of biblical parables? Where did your Fee, Stuart and Stein get their interpretive principle if they didn't find it in the bible?

1. This is quote of your own words:

Parables are stories that usually have figurative or symbolic elements that represent literal subjects. The primary warning or action in the parable is literal.

Emphasis mine.

2. Now if I were to apply your interpretive principle where "the primary warning or action in the parable is literal," then I should get the slave being tormented for the number of years ones gets from 10, 000 talents owed.

3. Now, that is what one gets when he carefully follows your interpretive principle.

4. I wasn't the one who laid it out.

 

[James_Newman]

1. This is quote of your own words:

Emphasis mine.

2. Now if I were to apply your interpretive principle where "the primary warning or action in the parable is literal," then I should get the slave being tormented for the number of years ones gets from 10, 000 talents owed.

3. Now, that is what one gets when he carefully follows your interpretive principle.

4. I wasn't the one who laid it out.

The primary warning is of being delivered to the tormentors until you have payed your debt. I don't know why you think arguing over terms and sums changes that. The slave in the parable was the figure. The warning is to us.

 

[TCGreek]

The primary warning is of being delivered to the tormentors until you have payed your debt. I don't know why you think arguing over terms and sums changes that. The slave in the parable was the figure. The warning is to us.

1. You can't fault a brother for following your interpretive principle.

2. I was following them as closely as I can and that is what I came up with.

3. Besides, what do you mean by "the primary warning is of being delivered to the tormentors until you have payed your debt"?

4. I thought the parable says, "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the tormentors..." The slave was handed over.

 

[James_Newman]

1. You can't fault a brother for following your interpretive principle.

2. I was following them as closely as I can and that is what I came up with.

3. Besides, what do you mean by "the primary warning is of being delivered to the tormentors until you have payed your debt"?

4. I thought the parable says, "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the tormentors..." The slave was handed over.

Matthew 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

What is hard about this saying?

 

[TCGreek]

The primary warning is of being delivered to the tormentors until you have payed your debt. I don't know why you think arguing over terms and sums changes that. The slave in the parable was the figure. The warning is to us.

1. According to you, "The primary warning or action in the parable is literal."

2. "The slave in the parable was the figure" doesn't change the literal nature of the warning of torment for the 10, 000 talents years worth of torture, if your interpretive principle is adhered to.

3. I'm only being a good student of your interpretive principle.

 

[James_Newman]

1. According to you, "The primary warning or action in the parable is literal."

2. "The slave in the parable was the figure" doesn't change the literal nature of the warning of torment for the 10, 000 talents years worth of torture, if your interpretive principle is adhered to.

3. I'm only being a good student of your interpretive principle.

Well, I'll give you a C since your new to my class, but youre going to have to do better than that if you want to pass your final.

 

[npetreley]

1. According to you, "The primary warning or action in the parable is literal."

2. "The slave in the parable was the figure" doesn't change the literal nature of the warning of torment for the 10, 000 talents years worth of torture, if your interpretive principle is adhered to.

3. I'm only being a good student of your interpretive principle.

You're being a poor student, actually. You forgot to spin the meaning based on some unrelated symbol. For example, talents are money. The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Therefore, they are paying back evil (money, which was earned through the love of money), and paying back evil for evil is itself, evil, which makes the kingdom evil, since that's the basis for correcting the unfaithful Christian. Are you getting all this down? I don't want to lose you here...

 

[TCGreek]

You're being a poor student, actually. You forgot to spin the meaning based on some unrelated symbol. For example, talents are money. The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Therefore, they are paying back evil (money, which was earned through the love of money), and paying back evil for evil is itself, evil, which makes the kingdom evil, since that's the basis for correcting the unfaithful Christian. Are you getting all this down? I don't want to lose you here...

I'm taking it all in. :laugh:

 

[TCGreek]

Well, I'll give you a C since your new to my class, but youre going to have to do better than that if you want to pass your final.

The teaching is disowning the very conclusions his writings lead to. No wonder I got a C!