Since that is what the Lord always did, versus using science fiction, and used something that really exists to represent something that really exists, which is fitting, then it appears the Lord followed that as a principle, while you have zero examples for your science fiction.
Wrong- He stated, as recorded by the apostles, that the mustard seed was the smallest seed- your explanation doesn’t even make sense - He stated something that was not true-
Blasphemy repeated! You have God teaching scientific error, which no parable does or can, which you compel Christ to teach in the interest of supporting your premise that He taught science fiction!
And my explanation makes much sense, that the mustard seed was the smallest "which a man took, and sowed in his field," as that is what preceded that, and is indeed like saying in America, "the dime is the smallest of coins." In the frame of reference of the people the Lord was speaking to, then this was actually considered the least of the seeds.
While the Lord did not do so in His parables, the Lord could have spoken phenomenologically, that is, descriptive of what they actually saw in effects, as in the sun rising, which it actually does regards the image of it rising in the sky. Which is not the same as teaching as real what does not occur even as regards visible effects.
That this does not even make sense to you is consistent with your desperate defense of Christ teaching science fiction in Lk. 16, since according to you and your cult reference such a place and experience never existed.
Lol- now I’m a blasphemer- my goodness- what a wretch I am
That you laugh at having God teach scientific error if consistent with teaching Lk. 16:19031 is a myth, and your handling of the word of God in vainly trying to defend.
God cannot err, and telling a story which teaches something about a physical reality that is not true is a error. Again, the parables of the Lord are fictitious stories which He use real physical things which represent real spiritual realities. Being wrong about the mustard seed being the smallest seed - which He would be if He was referring to all the seeds of the earth, versus what was sowed the local realm - would be as contrary to Divinity, as would saying the ten virgins were women pregnant by men.
[[Christ gave no indication that He was using a myth, ]]
Where in God’s word is there a command that He had to?
He did not, but that would be consistent with His use of parables, in which He (again) He never taught error about a physical item that He used as representing a spiritual reality. You vainly attempt to argue for an exception without any Scriptural precedent, and lacking any, you invoked a extraBiblical story and claimed that was the precedent! Yet aspects of which the Lord corrected,. Next then you have Christ teaching an error in earthly science! The issue is not what Christ could do but what you must do, which is to be consistent with what He always did do.
[[WRONG! Christ was not teaching the mustard seed was the smallest seed out of every seed on the earth,]]
he wasn’t? Please cite where He clarifies for His listeners- My bible doesn’t contain such a statement of clarification- perhaps your does?
Are you blind or obtuse? "The text says The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which a man took, and sowed in his field. Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs." (Mt. 13:31,32) Mark add "in the soil," but the "sowed in his field" places it their known context, like as my analogy to a dime would.
And it is likely some did not know that there were smaller seeds, such as the orchid seed, nor that it is not the greatest among herbs.and thus would be misled, not about a hidden spiritual truth, but that the Son of God could be counted on to teach scientific fact.
The statement is that it’s the smallest seed- AFTER claiming it’s a seed that is planted- You’re stretching the word-
No, as what precedes it defines what realm He referring to, and there are no commas or periods in the the earliest Greek manuscripts we have access to. You sure seem determined to make the Son of God teach error. Maybe you think He is a created being like the cult you referenced.
[[and the Lord never had occasion to use science fiction.]]
Sure He did- when confronting pharisees who were teaching a false doctrine-
Wrong again, as that is begging the question, presuming the very thing that must be proved, and is not.
[[Then stop posting absurdities, if not then you should be done with me as i am fed up with them!]]
Good for you- Would have been nice had you made a comment with the caveat that no one was able to have a difference of opinion because you can’t handle discussing things in a civil manner-
I am slow to wrath, but doctrine is life, and the Lord also reproved error in harsh terms
The resurrected Lord had a physical body- Are you suggesting those in hell have physical bodies but are able to suspend physical laws as did God?
The point, as said, was that physical laws simply do not apply in the spiritual realm. Get it or deny it. Take your pick.
How about addressing the points brought up instead of constantly ignoring them and concentrating on attacking my character?
What you think I have been doing, despite your complaints, and your continued attempts to defend the indefensible premise of the Lord teaching science fiction, which lead to claiming He taught error in science, warrant such reproof.
here ya go- Now please point to a scriptural passage that states this must always be the case?
Here ya go- Now please point to a scriptural passage that states this you can claim an exception to a consistence practice when you have no precedent, except to claim the very thing that must be proved is it?
“Because it’s never been done before, it can’t ever be done because, well... that’s the rule” That’s it- that’s all you’ve said basically-
And which is the protest of Catholics defending the sinlessness of Mary, arguing God could do this and "all" is not always inclusive of all. As if God, whose practice is record far less notable exceptions to the norm of lesser characters, and at least thrice states that Christ did no sin, would not record that Mary was without actual sin.
Paradise huh? Care to show where the bible speaks of Him DESCENDING into paradise
That is easy, and you should know it. "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43) And if you try the absurd argument of the cult your invoked, that the Lord is saying "Verily I say unto thee To day," as if He needed to differentiate btwn today and tomorrow, and contrary to other uses of "to day," then I will consider you further deceived.
As shown, the poster to whom we have responded (you have done a saintly patience job) is literally asserting that God would tell a falsehood as if it were a truth. That is asserting that God would tell a lie. I don’t suppose it will ever dawn upon such a twisted mind that if it could be true that God would tell a lie then how sercure could any Promise of God be? There is no thing more sure than a Promise from God. To call God a liar immediately cancels the accuser’s basis for faith and thus cancels at that moment their chance for salvation! But such is cultish religion ...
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.... and neither time is it used in an absolute sense, but in a relative, context-aware sense.
(Luke 2:1-3)
[[while you have zero examples for your science fiction.]]
Nope- we have one example- the parable of the rich man- setting a precedent
[[Are you blind or obtuse? “The text says The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which a man took, and sowed in his field. Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs.” (Mt. 13:31,32)]]
Are you incapable of making a comment without making an arrogant insult to go along with it? I see nothing in that verse that states the parable was talking only about the mustard seed being the smallest of ONLY those seeds which are planted
[[And it is likely some did not know that there were smaller seeds,]]
It doesn’t matter what they knew or didn’t know- God knew- and stated something that wasn’t true for the purposes of illustration
[[I am slow to wrath, but]]
But quick to arrogant insults-
[[The point, as said, was that physical laws simply do not apply in the spiritual realm.]]
Mmmm sure they don’t- this is why bodies in hell WILL experience the physical law of pain
[[What you think I have been doing, despite your complaints, and your continued attempts to defend the indefensible premise of the Lord teaching science fiction, which lead to claiming He taught error in science, warrant such reproof. ]]
I see, and you will no doubt be writing to all the major bible commentators, all the scholars, and all the scholars and theologians and kinfolks to chastise htem as well huh?
Look- these are not my thoughts- This issue has been debated for centuries- and NEITHER side has come to a 100% definitive conclusion- IF you are going to call me blasphemous- then you by extension are calling the bible’s most brilliant mindfs on the issue blasphemous as well-
The fact is that there is very strong evidence that this parable did infact turn a known, much used myth around on the Pharisees- to show that their ‘God blesses the rich, therefore anyone who is rich is favored of God’ False ideology was nothing but a lie-
I’ve asked you to provide some evidence that the souls in hell can talk to those in heaven, I’ve asked you to explain how a soul could thirst- I’ll ask how a person in such torment could only ask for a drop of water which would no NOTHING- I’ll ask
This parable is meant only to show that we all get what we earn in life=- nothing more nothing less- one isn’t made more worthy by their deeds than any other=- something the Pharisees were falsely teaching
Many many great biblical scholars do not believe this parable is a literal event- The MYTH of purgatory and paradise was adopted from pagan religions by the Jews long before Christ came on the scene- What the Pharisees was teaching was myth- there is nothing in God’s word which indicates man can cross over from sheol, that man can communicate with those in heaven when he is in sheol- or that a soul can be prayed out of sheol as the MYTH stated-
There is no truth to the pagan myth that a person can find it in their heart to be sorry for what they did, and to thusly be prayed out of purgatory- which you seem to suggest they can- claiming as you did that the Holy Spirit will be able to convict souls in hell apparently- The idea that this could happen is a purely pagan myth- used by the greeks, espoused by no less than plato himself-
Even I n Egyptian times they were teaching this myth- and the Jews no doubt were subject to these myths when captives of these godless people
The whole system of purgatory and paradise was invented by Babylonians- as a means of pilfering money and goods from those who grieve for their lost ones- giving htem false hope that they could pray their loved ones out of hell, and as a means of mental abuse by requiring those who are grieving lost ones to perform arduous rituals and ceremonies-
The whole concept of ‘soul sleep’ and purgatory was for the living to ‘improve the condition of those lost souls or loved ones-
You asked why Jesus would use soemthign not true to illustrate a point, indicating that the hearers might not understand the trut, yet this parable is spoken to the Pharisees, whom Jesus would not reveal truth to- and why shouldn’t he use their own myth against them? Those who know the truth know the moral of the story and can plainly see them oral is as has already been described- Rich doesn’t mean favored of God- Poor doesn’t mean despised of God (both of which the Pharisees taught), Gentiles were a part of Heaven- (Something that was appalling to the Pharisees, and something they would not accept), and many other Jewish centric symbolisms all throughout the parable made it very clear to Jews who were saved that the moral of the story is that God looks at the heart, not the acts or conditions- and that following the law is worthless- Period-
“Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.” (Luke 8:10).
Also- IF this parable is to be taken literally, then what Abraham said is NOT biblical- He told the rich man he was I n hell because He was rich, and the poor man was In heaven because he was poor. Is that how people were saved In the old testament? By giving away everything and dying a miserable death? Is that how people In the old testament went to hell by being rich? If course not, yet here we have something that is not true being stated in the parable. Abraham I n the parable, and Christ in telling the parable, did NOT point out any reason other than being rich for why the man was In hell, not any reason other than being poor that lazarus was In heaven- Since you are so concerned about people possibly ‘getting the wrong impression’ and state that ‘Jesus should have corrected something if it were not true’ then what you claim should apply to this as well because ‘it could’ leave some thinking that being rich means hell, poor means heaven- Christ did nothing to correct that because this parable is NOT about anything other than making the point that status has nothing to do with ones final resting place- As the Pharisees Falsely taught
[[That is easy, and you should know it. “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)]]
I said DESCENDING into paradise- The thief on the cross asked to be with Christ in His KINGDOM- and Christ didn’t correct the man and told him that he would be- Paradise is simply a term for heaven- There are no scriptures except for the parable which uses a myth, that describe paradise as a holdover state of existence for departed souls
[[That is easy, and you should know it. “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)]]
Yep- and paul was caught up into paradise too where He heard words that were unlawful to repeat- and who could speak such words? God alone- Paradise is at the seat of God
We know that the tree of life is where? Yep I nthe garden, and where is the garden? Yep in heaven, in God’s presence- not in some holdover place -some mythical ‘bosom of Abraham’
“a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the midst of the street thereof. And on this side of the river and on that was the tree of life. . . .”
[[Blasphemy repeated! You have God teaching scientific error, which no parable does or can,]]
Enough with the ‘blasphemy’ nonsense—
The Holy Inspired word Of God tells a tale of trees talking- wondering among themselves, appointing a king to themselves- You have stated several times Christ would never use something that wasn’t ‘real, or was fictitious’ Yet here we see God doing this very thing, through His servant Jotham, in a parable, in order to drive home a point
Judges 9:7-15 New International Version (NIV)
7 When Jotham was told about this, he climbed up on the top of Mount Gerizim and shouted to them, “Listen to me, citizens of Shechem, so that God may listen to you. 8 One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, ‘Be our king.’
9 “But the olive tree answered, ‘Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and humans are honored, to hold sway over the trees?’
10 “Next, the trees said to the fig tree, ‘Come and be our king.’
11 “But the fig tree replied, ‘Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?’
12 “Then the trees said to the vine, ‘Come and be our king.’
13 “But the vine answered, ‘Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and humans, to hold sway over the trees?’
14 “Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, ‘Come and be our king.’
15 “The thornbush said to the trees, ‘If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!’
[[you and your cult]]
Which cult exactly is it that you are referring to? Because the points I’ve brought up about the parable are stated by a great many scholars, commentators, and theologians- some from different denominations, most of which I cite from are either Baptist, or evangelicals- which group are you accusing of being a cult exactly? Because they all mention the things I’ve posted- And while I believe their explanations, I am simply relaying what they have said- poorly at times, but the basic premise beign that Christ told this parable as a non literal parable in order to drive home a point or points-