D
Della
Guest
If you say so.
- Status
T
TimothyH
Guest
There really is no need to condescend. It is very insulting.If you say so.
Jesus fed 5000 Jews with five loaves and had twelve baskets left over. See Matthew 14. 5000 and 5 loaves represent the five books of the law. Twelve baskets represent the twelve tribes.
Jesus fed 4000 gentiles with seven loaves and had seven baskets left over. See Matthew 15. 4000 represents the four corners of the earth from which all followers of Jesus will come. Seven represents perfection. Seven baskets represent the Gentiles reaching perfection.
You can make sarcastic remarks if you want but I didn’t make this up. It is right there in the Bible.
Jesus understands that his work on earth is almost done and it is time for his passion and death when Greeks ask to see him.
***Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. So these came to Philip, who was from Beth-sa’ida in Galilee, and said to him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew went with Philip and they told Jesus. And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. *(HJohn 12:20-24)
Make sarcastic remarks and post smileys all you want. It doesn’t change what the Bible clearly says. It’s right there for anyone to read.
-Tim-
B
BornInMarch
Guest
When the possessed pigs ran off the cliffs, did they return to Hell or did their souls cease to exist?
Also, why did Jesus grant them mercy?
Also, why did Jesus grant them mercy?
P
patrick457
Guest
Personally, I guess it’s the same logic behind “God does not send people to Hell - it’s something they choose for themselves.” Divine permissive will at work. The (self-)destructive demons pretty much defeated themselves by drowning their host bodies.
C
civilwar
Guest
Thanks for al l the replies, but I don’t think I’ve gotten a clear answer to the question I asked…
Any other thoughts appreciated!
Any other thoughts appreciated!
D
Della
Guest
I don’t think there is a clear answer because the Gospel writer chose not to tell us any more details–or he didn’t include any more details because they weren’t relevant to the reason he related it in his writings. Therefore, we can only speculate, which is what I tried to do, based on what I know of the culture at the time and Jesus’ mission to the Jews. And then we got majorly sidetracked, for which I take part of the blame.Thanks for al l the replies, but I don’t think I’ve gotten a clear answer to the question I asked…
Any other thoughts appreciated!
Keeping pigs wasn’t an honorable living in Jesus day among the Jews since they weren’t kosher animals. Jesus could have been sending a message to the herders (and the pigs’ owner, whoever that was) that, Jew or Gentile, the pigs were a symbol of sin–hence Jesus allowed the demons to enter them–so we need to rid ourselves of all sin, even if we earn our living from it. Now don’t take me or that idea literally. I’m just spiritually speculating since the Gospel writer doesn’t attach any meaning to the incident except the exorcism of the demoniac. Those who lived closer to the time the Gospel was written and had the same cultural and religious understanding might have drawn more from the story that that or attached other meanings to it, I can’t say. In any case, a temporal loss is always better than an eternal one, as Jesus said, “If your eye offends you, pluck it off…” etc. Reliable biblical scholars tell us he was speaking figuratively, but the idea that we need to avoid all occasions of sin is valid, although it 's probably a stretch on my part to apply that principle to this story.
C
civilwar
Guest
Thanks for your sincere response.I don’t think there is a clear answer because the Gospel writer chose not to tell us any more details–or he didn’t include any more details because they weren’t relevant to the reason he related it in his writings. Therefore, we can only speculate, which is what I tried to do, based on what I know of the culture at the time and Jesus’ mission to the Jews. And then we got majorly sidetracked, for which I take part of the blame.
Keeping pigs wasn’t an honorable living in Jesus day among the Jews since they weren’t kosher animals. Jesus could have been sending a message to the herders (and the pigs’ owner, whoever that was) that, Jew or Gentile, the pigs were a symbol of sin–hence Jesus allowed the demons to enter them–so we need to rid ourselves of all sin, even if we earn our living from it. Now don’t take me or that idea literally. I’m just spiritually speculating since the Gospel writer doesn’t attach any meaning to the incident except the exorcism of the demoniac. Those who lived closer to the time the Gospel was written and had the same cultural and religious understanding might have drawn more from the story that that or attached other meanings to it, I can’t say. In any case, a temporal loss is always better than an eternal one, as Jesus said, “If your eye offends you, pluck it off…” etc. Reliable biblical scholars tell us he was speaking figuratively, but the idea that we need to avoid all occasions of sin is valid, although it 's probably a stretch on my part to apply that principle to this story.
I appreciate that it’s very difficult to know much more of the circumstances since we only have the Gospel accounts to go by and they don’t mention my question. I just say the question raised somewhere amongst atheists online about Jesus destroying someone’s livelihood unnecessarily and I was trying to get a good response. Some of those you mentioned would be fine ideas to put forward. Thanks!
G
GEddie
Guest
The only problem with that is that Gentiles were not (and are not) expected to keep kosher; therefore, for them, there is no sin whatsoever in keeping pigs. For them, there was no meaning in the porcine mass-drowning beyond the financial loss.I don’t think there is a clear answer because the Gospel writer chose not to tell us any more details–or he didn’t include any more details because they weren’t relevant to the reason he related it in his writings. Therefore, we can only speculate, which is what I tried to do, based on what I know of the culture at the time and Jesus’ mission to the Jews. And then we got majorly sidetracked, for which I take part of the blame.
Keeping pigs wasn’t an honorable living in Jesus day among the Jews since they weren’t kosher animals. Jesus could have been sending a message to the herders (and the pigs’ owner, whoever that was) that, Jew or Gentile, the pigs were a symbol of sin–hence Jesus allowed the demons to enter them–so we need to rid ourselves of all sin, even if we earn our living from it. Now don’t take me or that idea literally. I’m just spiritually speculating since the Gospel writer doesn’t attach any meaning to the incident except the exorcism of the demoniac. Those who lived closer to the time the Gospel was written and had the same cultural and religious understanding might have drawn more from the story that that or attached other meanings to it, I can’t say. In any case, a temporal loss is always better than an eternal one, as Jesus said, “If your eye offends you, pluck it off…” etc. Reliable biblical scholars tell us he was speaking figuratively, but the idea that we need to avoid all occasions of sin is valid, although it 's probably a stretch on my part to apply that principle to this story.
The purpose may not have entirely been to teach a moral lesson, however; this could have been a graphic demonstration of how demonic activity is finally incompatible with life, even purely biologically.
ICXC NIKA
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Gerasa is a region east of the Sea of Galilee. The inhabitants of that city were Syrians who were Gentiles and had been Hellenized.I don’t think there is a clear answer because the Gospel writer chose not to tell us any more details–or he didn’t include any more details because they weren’t relevant to the reason he related it in his writings. Therefore, we can only speculate, which is what I tried to do, based on what I know of the culture at the time and Jesus’ mission to the Jews. And then we got majorly sidetracked, for which I take part of the blame.
Keeping pigs wasn’t an honorable living in Jesus day among the Jews since they weren’t kosher animals. Jesus could have been sending a message to the herders (and the pigs’ owner, whoever that was) that, Jew or Gentile, the pigs were a symbol of sin–hence Jesus allowed the demons to enter them–so we need to rid ourselves of all sin, even if we earn our living from it. Now don’t take me or that idea literally. I’m just spiritually speculating since the Gospel writer doesn’t attach any meaning to the incident except the exorcism of the demoniac. Those who lived closer to the time the Gospel was written and had the same cultural and religious understanding might have drawn more from the story that that or attached other meanings to it, I can’t say. In any case, a temporal loss is always better than an eternal one, as Jesus said, “If your eye offends you, pluck it off…” etc. Reliable biblical scholars tell us he was speaking figuratively, but the idea that we need to avoid all occasions of sin is valid, although it 's probably a stretch on my part to apply that principle to this story.
D
Della
Guest
Indeed. My only point was that it was that Jesus taught us all a lesson–to avoid sin by allowing the demons to enter the pigs . Perhaps that lesson was lost on the Syrians of the time, but the Scriptures aren’t merely history with no relevance for our day. Jesus knew that all his actions would have meaning for his followers throughout the centuries. Again, this is just my spiritual take on the event–not doctrine.
As to the herders losing their livelihood–that’s anybody’s guess since there’s no record of the consequences to the herders’ business. The question was–did Jesus deprive them of their livelihood. We simply don’t know. Would he have done so deliberately? Probably not. Would he have known the consequences–yes he would, but losing a temporal means of support was worth a man’s sanity and salvation. Weighed in the balance of time and eternity, Jesus did the right thing, especially since he is the Son of God and has the right to make such judgment calls.
C
civilwar
Guest
Della:
C
civilwar
Guest
Nelka - That quote is a great interpretation, thank you! Sorry if this was already posted earlier in the thread and I missed it.
C
civilwar
Guest
Great point!
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Apparently another lesson is that some people value their livelihood over the souls of men.
H
HelenRose
Guest
It certainly would have been a eye-opener for these farmers. If they were Jews they had no business in the pork business to begin with. If they were not Jews they may have learned a thing or two.
This has always been a puzzle for me as well. But, I suppose they were compensated one way or another. I will be interested to see how this is answered by others.
D
Della
Guest
Yes, some do. Of course, in the case of atheists making an issue of this, they only ask to cast doubt not really to seek information. I find it ironic that people who claim they don’t believe in God or miracles would ask about the consequences of a supposed a miracle. After all, if demons don’t exist and Jesus had no power over non-existent beings, how did he manage to cast them into a herd of pigs? If he couldn’t do that, then the herders had no one to blame. It only means that something spooked the pigs who ran madly into the water. Yes?
T
Todd977
Guest
I guess it could also be said that in changing water to wine Jesus deprived vineyards and wine makers of their livelihood and in multiplying loaves and fishes he deprived grain growers, millers, bakers, and fishermen of their livelihood. The principle of double effect seems to justify Jesus’ miracles.
D
Della
Guest
How about depriving doctors of paying patients by healing them or professional mourners and funerary professionals their livelihood by raising the dead? Obviously, the question is a ridiculous one aimed squarely at debunking Christ’s miracles and his mission. Atheists don’t really care about depriving herders of their living. C’mon, we all know what they’re really doing.
- Status