Parable of the Talents

Quote:
God would not take away the inheritance from a son as you suggested earlier in this tread.


I agree with that statement, so please show me where I said otherwise. If a son then your inheritance will not be taken away. But not all children become sons. That's the difference.

"If we lose our inheritance and are separated from God, does it really matter where we will be?"
Ring a bell?

 

Quote:
God only looks at the heart through the blood of Christ, never animal blood; He certainly searches “every individual”.

What do you think of that the blood of the lamb, a promise, and where was the promise written? I gave you plenty of scripture showing God searches all the hearts, which you had clearly denied. You have to compare scripture to scripture for the understanding. Looks like we're back to the blood of animals accomplishing salvation, you're totally missing the point and changing the subject. I'm starting to feel like a broken record so why don't you go back and study all the scripture I have posted to your none and have a nice day.

 

It's important to remember that the feast was for all the children of Israel and those who joined them. The blood was just for the firstborn. Christ died for all (that they may be saved), but his blood was shed for many.

 

J Jump,

I am not making stuff up, you will add things to this like, “all the children are not His sons” in support of your preaching of the kingdom. You said this doctrine has cost you friends, church family and got you called every name in the book. Well, I am one that has a bit of admiration for the message you are trying to preach in regards to believers responsibilities and the kingdom, otherwise I would not be wasting my time. What I am objecting to is your phrasing and pointing out why, as you admit, it sounds strange to many, and to me. This is not because I am blind to the truth, which BTW this will cause you conflict and defeat your purpose every time.

I believe when you state “faith apart from works” that that is what is in your heart as you won’t let go of confessing it. But much of your phrasing sounds like double talk to me and it is not because I am blind or denying the truth, it is because I see it differently. You are taking a parable, making it sound literal, and attempting to force fit your interpretation and sorry but with what I perceive as a bit of arrogance in what God has revealed to you in your belief that you have it all exactly figured out in your interpretation of the kingdom.

It is instructions to a believer, as you agree, and I understand God is a God of wrath, but God is also a God of love, as He is Love, and to take a literal interpretation out of the parable making it sounds as a son, born again in the Spirit is being called by his loving Savior wicked and all the like from an evil tyrant for not producing sounding as if it is their works that save them from God’s wrath, well, this will always meet with my objection on many accounts. Now if you tell me this is the plain reading of the scripture well friend I have a brain that reasons and I am seeing a deeper meaning to this plain reading that can not be quickly explained in a few words that you are not giving me credit for and I find this approach belittling. That is what it sounds and that is why I was for lack of a better word “hassling” you, so I will apologize for the harshness. We could go round and round on this forever trying to articulate our beliefs here and I think we would do much better in person and find we are rather likeminded in the long run and both learn from each other.

I think your enthusiasm for preaching a believer’s responsibilities is great and I am looking for a better approach to expound on this myself and I know how hard it is to express God’s mercy along side His justice. Sometimes I think the only way is to do it in a teeter-totter fashion while at the same time stressing a God of Love giving a free gift then all the implications of accepting that gift and becoming a slave that is not free to do as he pleases, yet, in Christ he is free indeed; what a complicated message! I agree with you it so often is given and taken without conviction of the depth of the price paid by our loving Creator so that we could be righteous in Him and what it means to be a true believer in the kingdom.

You ride a lot on Exodus 12, pretty much alone against an abundance of what I’ve been trying to explain to you about my perception of the blood of animals and I can’t point to the meaning out of just that one passage. The best comparison that I can think of to maybe explain better is from Eph 6 where we are told to put on the whole armour to be able to withstand in the evil day the fiery darts of Satan/death. We don’t believe it is literal armour but a spiritual shield and God’s saints will pray petitioning in the spirit that they will persevere in the Spirit because of faith. I do not think the OT saints literally counted on that blood to save them but obeyed in conscience this being contained in the differences of ministration of the HS but still being glorious and kept in the Spirit of Christ by the promise to come whether that or the promise fulfilled it was what was written in their hearts is what saved them and what God looked at.

The blood signifying believing the promise, but the work of the (animal) blood God did not desire or require (Psalms 40:6), yes they had to be obedient to the law as a saint saved by faith in that time and yes so does a saint today have to be obedient and they will because of what is in their heart, the difference being ministry of life or death, (2Cor 3:7-9). To say God looked at them through the blood of animals looks like an attempt to say it was the work of their hands that saved them and relating it back to the NT and comparing it to the blood of Christ to support your view of the kingdom is plain wrong in my eyes.

Anyway trying to explain this has been a learning experience for me and hopefully next time I will articulate it better and more fully but at this point I think it will take more time than I have. It’s a hard subject to discuss and many points to address and be missed. I hope my bluntness has not offended you.

Peace,

Ben

 

The thing about it, the reason it sounds like double talk is because the KJV translators, which almost everyone here is familiar with, translated many things all willy-nilly. (Although, the notes that were included with the 1611 version are very interesting and destroy much of the KJVO myths; if you want a copy, I can email them to you, although some modern KJV's still include them.)

The Greek has several words for "child". In English, you would call your newborn your "son" (even still in the womb, if you know it's a male), you would call your teenager "son", you would call your adult child your "son", you would call your friend's adult child his "son" or the "son of my friend". But, the Greek is much more specific. "Adoption" is from "huiothesia" and it means placing into authority; son-ship; not simply placement into a family. (Princeton gives the primary definition of "adoption" as "the act of accepting with approval; favorable reception".)

The Greek is not confusing; it's very precise. (Well, there are a few places that seem a bit ambiguous, but not nearly as many as in the KJV.) But, it often contradicts what we grew up learning in the KJV. There are many English translations that are very good that would seem confusing because they contradict what we all grew up with.

You see things such as in the parable of the virgins that their lamps "were going" out; they had oil. The wise virgins took oil in their vessels and they took their vessels along with their lamps. So, that puts you in the position to see that they had oil, so what does it mean that they ran out? It makes you investigate it more closely.

When you see "child" or "son", knowing the original word helps clarify the passage. When you see a present, active, participle, it clarifies a passage. When you see two things attached by the same preposition, it means something different than when it's two separate prepositional phrases. Knowing that the KJV translators translated "age" several different ways (5, if I remember correctly) helps understand certain passages.

So, it sounds "odd" in the sense that it's not what we're used to. But, it certainly is not odd and clarifies many different things.

 

What translation of the Bible do you use? I've recently gotten a copy of the ESV because it was recommended as an excellent translation. Do you agree or can you suggest something else?

 

I prefer the KJV, but yes, I like the ESV from what I've read of it; it's more easily readable and at least as good as the KJV. For study in English, I usually use the CLV or Rotherham's Emphasized Version, but prefer the NA27 Greek text. I would like to get a copy of the KJV with the translators' notes actually printed in the book, but cannot find an interleaved version with them.

 

HoG,

Personally I read the KJV because I do find it a very good translation and when needed the ease of using the Strongs Concordance for a help is mostly all I need as it is not hard to find the in depth meaning of things without being a linguist while comparing scripture to scripture. For instance using the virgins for example since we’re on the same page here I had no problem understanding they had oil to begin with out of the KJV alone upon closer investigation..

Thanks for the offer of the notes but I read those years ago about the KJV and never did abide in the myths. For a long time I read a KJV/NIV parallel but grew to prefer the KJV.

I have looked into the traditions of Jewish adoption and have heard the controversies pertaining to the C vs. A debate along with observing linguists commentaries conflicting each other as it suits their theology. Still being received in the spirit of adoption has powerful implications especially when you add it to, whereby we cry Abba Father.

Now if someone directly said, “ALL God’s children are not His sons.” what would matter is the context in what they meant by “God’s children” and what is intended to imply. Some linguists say Jesus had no brother, and Mary died a virgin, because a brother would have meant a cousin. I just take it for what it’s worth. Sure would be nice to have the knowledge though.

 

Know Jesus, Know Heaven...
... No Jesus, Know Hell

 

Do a study on the entire book of Hebrews--especially chapters 9 & 10.

Show from Scripture where the Jews were told NOT to believe in Jesus as Eternal Saviour. The Jews rejected Jesus because ALL they were looking for was a KING to save them from the Romans--they were NOT looking for an Eternal Saviour to save them from their sins. I am a born again Jew--and I know this to be true.

 

From the Jewish scholars that have been in my life, I would say they are as varied as Baptists, if not more so. It was a Jewish scholar who taught me about Genesis 1:1-2a.

 

Hebrews 10:1 - 7 should narrow it down considerably. He became the sacrifice, once for all.

John 14:6 During Jesus life here on earth, He said 'No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.' Christ said in John 10 that He is the Door. Yes, I believe Christ taught that even the Jews must come through Him when He said 'No man.'

Funny, I don't remember all the disciples not believing Him. I remember Simon Peter saying 'Be it far from Thee (Matthew 16),' but not the others. But Peter saying 'Be it far from Thee' does not necessarily mean He did not believe the Lord. He could very well have meant, 'Don't let it happen.'

When do you think they were saved?

Hebrews 10:1-9 KJV Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Our scripture exists. If one studies to show himself approved unto God, one would see those sacrifices have been done away with.

Luke 19:10 10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Christ also preached Salvation. See above verse.

I can agree man is not inerrant... I see many fallacies in your doctrine.

Many today still reject Him and His truth.

Luke 2:30 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

Just because they rejected Him does not mean He was not sent as their Eternal Savior. He was the Son of God; does that mean that since many did not recognize Him as the Son of God that He was not? Of course not!

That is an arrogant attitude. Had to be an orthodox Jew. Not all Jews are like that. Genesis was, of course, literal.

I mean no offense by this, but just because you have a Jewish heritage doesn't mean you have all the Biblical answers.[/quote]

Linda never claimed she had all the answers. But, my wife does study and God has revealed much to her through her faithfulness to study His Word.

 

The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. I will continue to receive the things of the Spirit of God.