Luke's Take on the Talents (Luke 19: 11-27)

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Hate dies a messy death. Look at the backlash against women's rights happening in many places.

And some leaders say those that are against tyranny are really vermin ... as they forget what initial flesh evolved from ... mycelial slime ... neurotic tissue?

In sometimes it comes as red ... other times as blue green algae ... quite happy to do their thing ... in some disorders of inflammation even purple or black shades!

That's stressful or rheumatoid condition of flaming flesh ... can affect brain tissue also! It is a medi call 'd condition that happens inside the organism ... thus the word orch 's EM! Also dorks for leaders ... all thought being elsewhere ... intellect is not prerequisite ... said to be a loess or laws ... crafted in a clay vessel ... the Greek put it on the outside of the pot ... as an image! Intuit????

Few grasp because of the thick din ... an intention? T' peace ... meat of the myth is something else ... differs from the bones ...
 
Hate dies a messy death. Look at the backlash against women's rights happening in many places.
Jesus was a realist, maybe? We like to think of Him as peace loving but I don't believe scripture presents him as a pacifist.

Chuckling to myself about @Mystic 's Kumbaya Jesus upthread.
 
We like to think of Him as peace loving but I don't believe scripture presents him as a pacifist.
Maybe he was, but was also realistic enough to know that the kind of change he advocated wouldn't happen without conflict. A realist pacifist as opposed to the idealistic, "let's all go pick flowers together and always be nice" pacificism we sometimes hear from. History tells us that realism wins so perhaps being realistic is necessary.
 
Maybe he was, but was also realistic enough to know that the kind of change he advocated wouldn't happen without conflict. A realist pacifist as opposed to the idealistic, "let's all go pick flowers together and always be nice" pacificism we sometimes hear from. History tells us that realism wins so perhaps being realistic is necessary.
Agreeing with this.

Jesus used hyperbole in his preaching and parables but I also think he could be a bit of a hothead. (Reflecting his humanity, perhaps?)

It's hard for me to see the nobleman in the minas parable any other way. Calling for his enemies to be slaughtered in front of him seems pretty hot headed to me.

It has been quite shocking to learn about this side of Jesus in recent years. Actually reading the Gospels can have that effect on someone who grew up with the Kumbaya Jesus mentioned by @Mystic
 
Calling for his enemies to be slaughtered in front of him seems pretty hot headed to me.
As a student of ancient history, I would suggest that if this is hot-headed, then there were a lot of hot-headed nobility and rulers in the past. Slaughtering your enemies and taking their women and children into slavery was a pretty standard MO back in the day. Being a coldhearted bastard was, in other words, expected of the upper classes back then. Or so it seems from history. It was the ones who didn't behave like that who stood out.
 
As a student of ancient history, I would suggest that if this is hot-headed, then there were a lot of hot-headed nobility and rulers in the past. Slaughtering your enemies and taking their women and children into slavery was a pretty standard MO back in the day. Being a coldhearted bastard was, in other words, expected of the upper classes back then. Or so it seems from history. It was the ones who didn't behave like that who stood out.
Perhaps the lesson is that we need to remember the context in which Jesus lived.

Perhaps he told the parable this way because he knew how the people would relate to it.

Anyways I am starting to think I grew up with a rather sanitized view of Jesus. Evangelical Christians always tell us we cherry pick our stories from the bible. They may have a point.

CGIT and CGIT camp had a big influence on me in my early teens.
 
Even as they do it themselves at times. Or at least cherry pick which ones to take "literally". :rolleyes:
At the very least, we all pick the stories we want to emphasize. I wonder if other world faiths do this with their Holy Books?
 
I wonder if other world faiths do this with their Holy Books?
Not all world faiths have the same attitude or even tradition around scripture.

The Jewish and Christian scriptures are, in the end, an anthology by diverse hands so cherry picking is almost a necessity since there are actual contradictions, as one might expect given multiple authors and even some stories that began as oral traditions.

Whereas in Islam, you have one book by one person (allegedly, there's some dispute among those who take a scholarly historical approach), or at least revealed to one person. So presumably more consistency and less need to cherry pick.

Then there's Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism where you have many texts that built up over centuries and which ones you use depends on which school of the faith you follow. There is no concept of a single definitive "Word of God" in most East and South Asian traditions (I believe the Sikhs are an exception) so the concept of "cherry picking" is kind of meaningless. Different people follow different texts and myths just as part of the regular practice of the faith.

And then there's pagan and indigenous traditions that generally don't even have a scripture since everything is oral and the stories they follow are as much cultural as specifically religious. The actual religion is more about practice than a creedal, definitive set of beliefs. For instance, while Homer's epics tell stories from an earlier oral tradition about the gods and heroes, they weren't treated like scripture, just great literature. Other writers put their own spin on the same stories and nobody blinked. That's just how myths worked for them. Same in Nordic-Germanic paganism (Scandinavia, Northern Germany).

So I think the concept of "cherry picking" is a very Christian idea and exists because of how the Christian scriptures and their Jewish predecessors developed. It's actually a meaningless concept in a lot of the world's religions.
 
The evangelists did their own cherry picking in deciding which Hebrew passages to use or reference.
True enough. It has kind of been part of the tradition from the get go. Even Jesus arguably did it with his quotes from the prophets (assuming he said those and they weren't a later interpolation).
 
True enough. It has kind of been part of the tradition from the get go. Even Jesus arguably did it with his quotes from the prophets (assuming he said those and they weren't a later interpolation).
Wouldn't he have been raised with those quotes, though?
 
he could be a bit of a hothead. (Reflecting his humanity, perhaps?)

It's hard for me to see the nobleman in the minas parable any other way. Calling for his enemies to be slaughtered in front of him seems pretty hot headed to me.

My opinion on this ----

Well intellectually you could paint Him as a Hot Head ---but in the Spiritual sense He was executing Righteous Judgment ----

Remember He called 10 who say their are His Servants -----but some were no real servants they were imposters just wannabes ---False servants ---just like today many who call themselves Christians and who are really not true Christians ---but use the term ------they are enemies of God and therefore will reap what they sow themselves -----

This part of the Parable here is where He says this --the separating of the Sheep and Goats ------
Calling for his enemies to be slaughtered in front of him seems pretty hot headed to me.


The separation of the sheep from the Goats and where each end up in their end

Is Righteous Judgment ----brought on by our own selves --there is no real excuse as the Scripture describes to us who are the true and false servants -------and why they are so --and their actions ----

Verse 43 below is a good one ----Jesus is always available for us to invite into our Lives but it is us who refuse to invite Him in ---our choice ----our end result



Matthew 25

The Sheep and the Goats​


33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
 
Speaking of cherry picking, how many of us prefer the parable of the talents to the parable of the minas?
 
Back
Top