Why parables?, so we will not understand and be saved?

[Pitcharan]

that’s a good point. here is the passage in mark:

10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
" ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’[a]”

it is very clear here even if one doesn’t think so in matthew that jesus is teaching in parables so that people will NOT understand his teaching and be saved.

NO SIR, you are sadly mistaken. Unless you think in Hebrew or Aramaic, you are bound to misunderstand this as did many Bible researchers. It ONLY means, that those like the twelve who are already drawn to truth (Jesus) will more readily comprehend the secrets and mysteries of the kingdom of God. The understanding of others will be the outcome of the inclination of their hearts. Parobolic method will confound and provoke meditation. The hard hearted can see but not perceive; hear but not understand. The humble will ponder and be led to truth that will become indelibly engraved on their hearts.“Otherwise” means “if only they would become humble and contrite”

 

[Mailman]

hi, i always found this to be such a strange passage. my conception of jesus as great spiritual teacher is such that he would never deliberately be inscrutable is in his teaching so that people would not be saved by his words. my understanding of what such a great spiritual master is like is that he would have wanted everyone to hear and understand rather than try to speak in a way that people who not understand.

passage below

rocinante

The reason why Jesus did not want the people to understand His teaching was because, unlike what most people think, Jesus did not come to “save” people during His ministry on earth. Rather, Jesus came to announce the gospel (good news) of the coming kingdom of God and to make the ultimate sacrifice so that through His death it made it possible for those whom the Father “calls” to be reconciled to God, and by His resurrection, eventually enter that kingdom. Jesus did not try to convert the multitudes as He Himself said. He was not trying to save all humanity back then anymore than God is trying to save humanity now.

This is hard for many professing Christians to understand. We have been taught that this is the only age and time when God is trying to save the world – that the mission of the Church is to save the world – that this is the only day of salvation and those not saved in this present lifetime are lost forever.

The startling truth is that this is not the age in which God is trying to save all the world. It is not the only day of salvation. The vast majority today are neither saved nor lost – they simply have not, yet, been called to salvation. They have not been given the opportunity to understand God’s truth. Their chance has not yet come. But as surely as God’s Word is true, that time is coming.

 

[PJM]

=Rocinante;7185965]hi, i always found this to be such a strange passage. my conception of jesus as great spiritual teacher is such that he would never deliberately be inscrutable is in his teaching so that people would not be saved by his words. my understanding of what such a great spiritual master is like is that he would have wanted everyone to hear and understand rather than try to speak in a way that people who not understand.

passage below

rocinante

Matthew 13:10–1710 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

11 He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

Consider these hints:

2nd. Peter Chapter One verse 20 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. “

**2 Peter 3: 14 –17 14 **“Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen”.

**Eph. 4: 18 ** “they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart;”

Rom.10: 17 “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.”

1Tim.3: 15 “if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” This passage applies ONLY to the CC and what She Teaches on matters of Faith and Morals…

 

[Christian090676]

hi, i always found this to be such a strange passage. my conception of jesus as great spiritual teacher is such that he would never deliberately be inscrutable is in his teaching so that people would not be saved by his words. my understanding of what such a great spiritual master is like is that he would have wanted everyone to hear and understand rather than try to speak in a way that people who not understand.

Hello!

You read the parable of the sower and the interpretation. There you’ll find the answer. vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVM.HTM

Luke Chapter Chapter 8: 15 But as for the seed that fell on rich soil, they are the ones who, when they have heard the word, embrace it with a generous and good heart, and bear fruit through perseverance.

Parables seen. You can not force it. I believe the finding is (name removed by moderator)uted by the holy Spirit. Perseverance is important, even if you do not understand everything immediately.

Luke Chapter 11: 9"And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. 11 What father among you would hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish? 12 Or hand him a scorpion when he asks for an egg? 13 If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the holy Spirit to those who ask him?"

In the prophecies is written that the parables are saved.

Isaiah Chapter 8: 14 Yet he shall be a snare, an obstacle and a stumbling stone to both the houses of Israel, A trap and a snare to those who dwell in Jerusalem; 15 And many among them shall stumble and fall, broken, snared, and captured. 16 The record is to be folded and the sealed instruction kept among my disciples. 17 For I will trust in the LORD, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob; yes, I will wait for him.

Interpretation of verse 16: The Parables of Jesus

Matthew Chapter 9 14 Then the disciples of John approached him and said, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast (much), but your disciples do not fast?”
15 Jesus answered them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.
16 No one patches an old cloak with a piece of unshrunken cloth, for its fullness pulls away from the cloak and the tear gets worse. 17 People do not put new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise the skins burst, the wine spills out, and the skins are ruined. Rather, they pour new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”

Interpretation of verse 17: Before Christianity was established, Jesus knows that will create a new religion. Christianity. The new wine (new religion Christianity) will be poured into new skins (people in other countries).

The new religion (Christianity, the Gospel of Jesus) is preached to people in other countries (Europe, America, Russia). There it is founded. Then both are preserved. What happened too. Today, there are the Jews and Christianity.

A combination of the two religions (Judaism and Christianity) has not been planned by our Father in heaven, at least until the present day. Jesus is the Son of God, because he knew that. Jesus could only know that if he is in direct communication with our Father in heaven.

Interpretation of Verse 14 und 15: Disciples of Jesus and the disciples of John and the other Jews have gone their separate ways.

So I see this parable.

Christian
christiankiesl090676.wordpress.com/

 

[presto]

For a catholic, as some have already mentioned, difficult passages like these are usually accepted by faith in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the magisterium of the church. It is reasonable for a catholic to accept 2 thousand years of bible study by philosophers and theologians who have made themselves familiar with the intricacies of the time period and original language of the scriptures over the individual’s own generally uneducated interpretation.

But, what if you’re not catholic? And you have no reason to believe in the magisterium’s ability or even intention to discern and teach the truth? Well, I can’t make the answer to your question any clearer than what some of the excellent posts in this thread already have, but maybe we can take a look at it from an entirely different perspective? One that doesn’t rely on bible interpretation?

Surely we can agree that the authors of the New Testament, and the Gospels in specific, were concerned with the spread of Christianity (whether you agree that that version of Christianity is truth or not). If we can agree on that statement, then it seems unlikely that the Gospel authors would include statements by the Lord himself that would contradict their own intentions, correct? It would be crippling to their agenda.

I agree that passages like these are rather shocking when first read, and I’ve struggled with them in the past myself. But, we can see, based on these 2 very simple assumptions, that passages like the ones in question probably do not mean what our initial (and limited) understanding may discern for us. If Jesus was really interested in preventing people from discerning the truth (aside from his apostles), why would he even bother with the parables at all? Why wouldn’t he simply ignore the crowds and their questions and simply give private revelation to his apostles? It simply isn’t compatible with the message of the Gospel, there must be something more that is beyond our knowledge or wisdom to understand. That’s why the magisterium is so necessary.

Unfortunately, that still doesn’t provide us with an answer, but it does indicate that perhaps you should be more willing to consider other interpretations that are more in-line with the overall Gospel message, even some of the explanations in this very thread.

 

[Rocinante]

For a catholic, as some have already mentioned, difficult passages like these are usually accepted by faith in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the magisterium of the church.

how far does this go? is there any point at which it would be possible to think, yeah, but that is just not what it says. if the church says that, say, in this hypothetical passage where the literally says “thou shalt kill” it means “thou shalt NOT kill.” if the church can infallibly interpret a passage to mean the opposite of what it says, then the bible is merely a secondary source of knowledge. it would then make no sense for the cathechism to be full of justification for the church’s teachings in terms of bible quotes since the meaning of bible quotes is simply whatever the church says it is.

Unfortunately, that still doesn’t provide us with an answer, but it does indicate that perhaps you should be more willing to consider other interpretations that are more in-line with the overall Gospel message, even some of the explanations in this very thread.

this seems to amount to the same as simply discarding certain passages that don’t agree with the overall message. this is the method i prefer myself since i find that certain passages as the one under discussion just can’t be reconciled with my conception of jesus based on a global view of the gospels.

rocinante

 

[PJM]

=Rocinante;7202926]how far does this go? is there any point at which it would be possible to think, yeah, but that is just not what it says. if the church says that, say, in this hypothetical passage where the literally says “thou shalt kill” it means “thou shalt NOT kill.” if the church can infallibly interpret a passage to mean the opposite of what it says, then the bible is merely a secondary source of knowledge. it would then make no sense for the cathechism to be full of justification for the church’s teachings in terms of bible quotes since the meaning of bible quotes is simply whatever the church says it is.

this seems to amount to the same as simply discarding certain passages that don’t agree with the overall message. this is the method i prefer myself since i find that certain passages as the one under discussion just can’t be reconciled with my conception of jesus based on a global view of the gospels.

rocinante

**FRIEND,

Would you PLEASE share with us a few or even ONE example where he Catholic Church applies a translation that is directly opposite of what the Catholic bible states… Thank you.**

 

[Rocinante]

**FRIEND,

Would you PLEASE share with us a few or even ONE example where he Catholic Church applies a translation that is directly opposite of what the Catholic bible states… Thank you.**

i was asking in the hypothetical but as far as i’m concerned an example is the one that started this thread obviously.

 

[beehumble]

i was asking in the hypothetical but as far as i’m concerned an example is the one that started this thread obviously.

By not reflecting and meditating on Nathan Wagar’s first, detailed, and educational post, you are becoming a living example of those very people Jesus was talking about to His disciples. For your sake, meditate very deeply on his first post until you can understand it.

We have free will, and Jesus does not take that from us. Read Nathan’s first post - all of it - the free will part etc until you ‘get’ it.

First, though, you need to be open to the assumption that your understanding of what Jesus said is wrong. Assume what Jesus said is the truth, is correct, and that He indeed came to save us, and try to figure out how what He said here can fit in with that? And the answer is in Nathan’s post.

God bless you.

 

[PJM]

=Rocinante;7204331]i was asking in the hypothetical but as far as i’m concerned an example is the one that started this thread obviously.

THANKS fo the reply, however it makes no sense to me:shrug:

A parble is a story usually with a moral meesage. Which one do you understand to support your view? That wht the CC teaches is oposit what the bible say’s.

God bless,
Pat

 

[rcjones]

Now for something completely different

Jesus was continually faced with the temptation to avoid the cross. If people would be saved from his teaching alone, it would further tempt him to avoid the cross. He had to die desolate according to prophecy, therefore he had to intentionally teach so that he would not have large crowds when he finally faced the cross.

This is prefigured by Adam and Eve not being permitted to eat the tree of Life. Had they lived without the cross, the whole plan of salvation would have fallen apart. All of the the OT scriptures speak of Christ, but in hidden pictures that could only be discerned after the cross.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Rocinante.

I am afraid what Beehumble said is true about you. This is not to say anything against you, but this is what Jesus actually meant. Nathan Wagar had explained it well and referenced it to earlier scripture. It’s about the hardening of the heart that causes us not able to accept what has been explained. Jesus said with such people it is no use to explain even further because they will not open their hearts to the explanation.

In other word this people are not open to explanation or to the idea. Their ears are not open; their eyes not open. Even though they have them they do not hear nor do they see.

As for the apostles it was different. Even when they do not know they asked and they were open to the explanation.

 

[presto]

how far does this go? is there any point at which it would be possible to think, yeah, but that is just not what it says. if the church says that, say, in this hypothetical passage where the literally says “thou shalt kill” it means “thou shalt NOT kill.” if the church can infallibly interpret a passage to mean the opposite of what it says, then the bible is merely a secondary source of knowledge. it would then make no sense for the cathechism to be full of justification for the church’s teachings in terms of bible quotes since the meaning of bible quotes is simply whatever the church says it is.

this seems to amount to the same as simply discarding certain passages that don’t agree with the overall message. this is the method i prefer myself since i find that certain passages as the one under discussion just can’t be reconciled with my conception of jesus based on a global view of the gospels.

rocinante

The Church interprets scripture in the context of the entire Bible and in the context of the time period and idiosyncrasies of the culture and language it was written in. If the original authors had a particular saying that actually meant something different than what it seemed to (for instance, cool often has nothing to do with temperature in our own culture, or sometimes bad means good), then sure, the Church would interpret it that way. However, I am not immediately aware of any passages like this.

Other interpretations besides your own amount to discarding passages? I don’t thinks so. On the contrary, I think you have chosen to conveniently ignore many parts of this thread and my own original post in particular.

Essentially, it all boils down to faith. There’s always an argument for both sides and you’ll never have all the answers, nobody can ever win until the end of time. You either accept it on faith, or you do not.

 

[Mailman]

Jesus gave a plain, straight-forward answer to a simple, direct question. There is absolutely no doubt that Jesus meant what He said. But why can’t people believe His words? Is it not because this would conflict with our belief that this is the only time and age for man to convert and be saved? Think. If we do not have such a concept of salvation, would we even give Jesus’ words a second thought – that maybe it could not mean what it plainly say? Rather than try to interpret other meanings into Jesus’ words to fit a preconceived notion, wouldn’t it be far wiser for us to instead question and examine any contradictory belief we hold?

But it is not really that difficult to see that this time and age could not be the only day of salvation. We know that the Bible plainly says there is only one name, and one only, given under heaven among men whereby we may be saved – the name of Jesus Christ. But we can see that billions of human souls have lived and died without so much as having heard that only name. Even today, more than a decade into the communications age, millions upon millions have yet to hear of the only name that can save them. They simply do not know about salvation from sin and have never heard the Gospel.

So, they cannot be saved. But can we believe that a God of love permitted them to live and die without ever having heard the precious gospel – that God has simply consigned them to eternal punishment because they never had a chance? Or, do we believe that in some manner God saves them, if they live up to the best they know, without having known and accepted Christ – without having been converted? Is there, then, some other name – some other way to salvation, than through Jesus Christ our Lord? Certainly we can find no such teaching in the book we all believe contains the very words of Almighty God.

Reason as we must, but God’s Word is clear that without the God of the true Christian, the heathen has NO HOPE of salvation. Speaking to converted Gentiles of his day, the apostle Paul made this point clear when tells them: “That at that time you were without Christ” – at the time when they were yet unconverted – “being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, HAVING NO HOPE, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12).

God’s Word is consistent. Without repentance of sin, acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior, and Christ living in us, there is no hope of salvation. If only in this lifetime is man given his one chance of salvation, then only a handful are going to be saved. But the Bible tells us that God “will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tit. 2:4). This simply is not the time when God is trying to save everyone.

But why would Jesus even bother with parables if He was not interested in having the people come to the knowledge of the truth? That question can be answered with another question. Why would God tell Daniel a prophecy which Daniel could not understand and God not revealing that knowledge to him?

 

[PJM]

=Reuben J;7205343]Hi Rocinante.
I am afraid what Beehumble said is true about you. This is not to say anything against you, but this is what Jesus actually meant. Nathan Wagar had explained it well and referenced it to earlier scripture. It’s about the hardening of the heart that causes us not able to accept what has been explained. Jesus said with such people it is no use to explain even further because they will not open their hearts to the explanation.

In other word this people are not open to explanation or to the idea. Their ears are not open; their eyes not open. Even though they have them they do not hear nor do they see.

As for the apostles it was different. Even when they do not know they asked and they were open to the explanation.

**Friend your not alone with this problem. EVERY single Protestant; to varying degrees is similarly inflicted with a LACK OF FAITH.

WHY and HOW?**

Why is easy to explain: Jesus Founded ONLY one new Church, One New Faith, One New Covenant as attested by the Bible Christians profess to believe in. ONLY ONE! And for a VERY Long time there was ONLY ONE!

Faith is a Gift. Without this GIFT of Faith from Jesus Christ, who alone determines who receives it. [Matt. 11:25 and Eph. 4:18 and 2 Peter 1:20] LOOK THESE UP.

Everyone! Including those of us that Christ for reasons ONLY HE understands has blessed with His Faith [as apposed to ones own self-created version of faith] ought to like the Apostles pray: **Luke.17: 5 **“The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” and to Give THANKS for this gift.

Without a Catholic Godly faith, one is forced to either accept another faith of lesser value, more recent in origin and not actually biblically supported. Simply because one “knows Christ” is NOT going to gain one access to heaven. WHY?

Because the position itself is not biblically founded, is not a DIRECT TEACHING of Jesus Christ who does not even know this new “doctrine.” Consider this FACT:

Matt. 19: 16 - 21 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." …. He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

Notice Jesus does not say “have Faith” and you will be Justified. Nowhere in the bible does Jesus utter these words! Certainly Faith is ESSENTIAL to ones salvation; and one CANNOT, absolutely CANNOT know in a full manner the REAL Christ, the REAL God; without the GIFT of Faith from God. And without this one cannot NOT KNOW Christian TRUTH!

Pray frinds for Faith because only with Christ FORM of Faith does one gain aceass to Wisdom, Knowledge an Understanding. The Fruits of TRUE Faith.

 

[Reuben_J]

**EVERY single Protestant; to varying degrees is similarly inflicted with a LACK OF FAITH.

**

Hi. You may want to use that post as an oppurtunity to make a statement. My earlier post which you responded to did not speak about faith but about not believing or rather about having nothing to do with the explanation (of Jesus).

Now commenting on what you posted here - as far as having faith is concerned, we (Catholics) are perhaps not much different than our seperated brethrens. There are many Protestants who are very strong in their faith as there are Catholics too. The difference in their belief respectively has little to do with the strength of their faith.

It is true (what you said) that we have to pray for an increase in faith. This however is ongoing in a life of e believer. To begin with all of us do have that ‘little faith’, a prerequisite for having a bigger one.

God bless.

 

[Pitcharan]

Hi. You may want to use that post as an oppurtunity to make a statement. My earlier post which you responded to did not speak about faith but about not believing or rather about having nothing to do with the explanation (of Jesus).

Now commenting on what you posted here - as far as having faith is concerned, we (Catholics) are perhaps not much different than our seperated brethrens. There are many Protestants who are very strong in their faith as there are Catholics too. The difference in their belief respectively has little to do with the strength of their faith.

It is true (what you said) that we have to pray for an increase in faith. This however is ongoing in a life of e believer. To begin with all of us do have that ‘little faith’, a prerequisite for having a bigger one.

God bless.

Well said Reuben.
Let us acknowledge that we are all fellow travellers in search of truth in fullness. We are all welcome to share each others’ understandings, be they right or wrong. Debating hard is fine, but not branding and stereotyping.

 

[PJM]

=Reuben J;7212412]Hi. You may want to use that post as an oppurtunity to make a statement. My earlier post which you responded to did not speak about faith but about not believing or rather about having nothing to do with the explanation (of Jesus).

Now commenting on what you posted here - as far as having faith is concerned, we (Catholics) are perhaps not much different than our seperated brethrens. There are many Protestants who are very strong in their faith as there are Catholics too. The difference in their belief respectively has little to do with the strength of their faith.

It is true (what you said) that we have to pray for an increase in faith. This however is ongoing in a life of e believer. To begin with all of us do have that ‘little faith’, a prerequisite for having a bigger one.

God bless.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR REPLY

It seems evident to me in looking at self interpetation of the Bible and the multiplicity of incorrect understanding is that Protestant Faith [with it’s personal understandings] is primarily man-made, develpoed not by God.and is therefore often incorrect.

True Faith as OUGHT to be found in the Catholic Church, is as the bibles say’s: A GIFT FROM GOD… **Eph.2: 8 **"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – "

Faith a free gift from God is followed by GRACE; some of which too is purely a “free-gift” while God’s Mysteriois ways permits humanity to “merit” other graces in conformance to the Divine Will.

The noteable differnce in our faith and the Protestant faiths [so it seems to me] is that Catholic Faith comes complete with the FRUITS OF TRUE FAITH; Wisdom, Knowledge; and Understanding. That is thepoint I was trying to make.

God bless,

 

[Pitcharan]

…The noteable differnce in our faith and the Protestant faiths [so it seems to me] is that Catholic Faith comes complete with the FRUITS OF TRUE FAITH; Wisdom, Knowledge; and Understanding. That is thepoint I was trying to make.God bless,

Faith does not have different colors. It is the same for Catholics, Protestants and all mankind. Recall those non-jews lauded by Jesus for their faith (Centurion, Canannite mother of a demon posessed girl, …). Faith is belief in truth, even in the absence of tangible evidence, by virtue of spiritual vision given by God

 

[PJM]

=Pitcharan;7215975]Faith does not have different colors. It is the same for Catholics, Protestants and all mankind. Recall those non-jews lauded by Jesus for their faith (Centurion, Canannite mother of a demon posessed girl, …). Faith is belief in truth, even in the absence of tangible evidence, by virtue of spiritual vision given by God

***Different “colors”; perhaps not. Differnt “sizes” [degreess or amounts] Yes definately.

Were this NOT Ttrue then how does one explain and justify all the man-made Protestant positions that have resulted in a HUGE number of seperate Faiths and churches? All of which are at least unbiblical and some anti-biblical.

Protestant “Faith” begans with man searching for God:

Not so for Catholics whose Faith is a FREE GIFT from God; an then nourished by God’s Grace.***