Master of Divinity Student

[GWH]

By the way, I did take two semesters of Greek and Greek exegesis as well. Though, again, I just don't have the time to get into deep exegesis of the text. I hope you will understand that, I'm doing my final this week on the Parable of the Talents!

Good luck! My take on that is this: God’s just judgment is illustrated by Jesus in the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-29), which indicates that God will judge souls on the basis of the truth (Word = Christ per John 1:1f.) they have received. The one talent may represent those who only have access to creation/general revelation, the five talents could represent the Jews who knew the OT
Torah and Prophets, and the ten talents might signify folks familiar with the NT Gospel.

 

[GWH]

Mere mental assent to His life isn't faith, faith requires action, His commands were to heal, cleanse, cast out, etc.
This was a fair article on this.
best wishes
https://allankakinda.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/mental-assent-vs-faith-in-the-almighty-god/

Yes, faith means cooperating with His commandment to love one another
(Matt. 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2).

 

[Taylorj2]

Good luck! My take on that is this: God’s just judgment is illustrated by Jesus in the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-29), which indicates that God will judge souls on the basis of the truth (Word = Christ per John 1:1f.) they have received. The one talent may represent those who only have access to creation/general revelation, the five talents could represent the Jews who knew the OT
Torah and Prophets, and the ten talents might signify folks familiar with the NT Gospel.

I disagree with the allegorical interpretation.

I believe that you must consider that all three of the servants knew their master - though one of them had a wrong mindset of the master. All of them are given a measure of responsibility, and one squandered his opportunity. I believe that this is for sure in the context of Eschatology, and I believe that it represents the believers both Jew and Gentile receiving the Gospel and what they do with it. It is the stewardship of the message, whether we are working it in our lives and the lives of others - and a lot of that will come from our view and perception of Master Jesus!

 

[Taylorj2]

Good luck! My take on that is this: God’s just judgment is illustrated by Jesus in the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-29), which indicates that God will judge souls on the basis of the truth (Word = Christ per John 1:1f.) they have received. The one talent may represent those who only have access to creation/general revelation, the five talents could represent the Jews who knew the OT
Torah and Prophets, and the ten talents might signify folks familiar with the NT Gospel.

Another thing you may find interesting is according to Rabbinic tradition, what the man with one talent did was right and lawful. He did not break the law in his action. It is actually his perception of his master that was wrong. That wrong led him to doing actions and not carrying out the fullness of what he was entrusted. Another parable to consider is Luke's account with the parable of the Minas.

 

[GWH]

I disagree with the allegorical interpretation.

I believe that you must consider that all three of the servants knew their master - though one of them had a wrong mindset of the master. All of them are given a measure of responsibility, and one squandered his opportunity. I believe that this is for sure in the context of Eschatology, and I believe that it represents the believers both Jew and Gentile receiving the Gospel and what they do with it. It is the stewardship of the message, whether we are working it in our lives and the lives of others - and a lot of that will come from our view and perception of Master Jesus!

Then you will not understand the parables, which employ allegory (a story or literary device where characters, events, and settings represent deeper, symbolic meanings beyond the literal narrative). It's a way to convey moral or spiritual truths through symbolic representations rather than straightforward statements.
Meditate on John 16:25 & 29. Truth can be conveyed via both literal and figurative language.

 

[Inquisitor]

I don't believe that they did. This is one of the topics I am most interested in researching, but I do believe that they continued. I believe the Gifts will cease when Christ returns (1 Cor. 13).

How do you interpret the following paragraph?

1 Corinthians 2:1-5
And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you
the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not
in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not
rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

 

[studier]

We can agree to disagree on the use of Kai in the verse, but I do not believe personally we can conclude that they were interpreted from that verse. You're attempting to read and imply your presupposition into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

Don't like the agree to disagree phrase, but I do understand when someone wants to drop out early.

Do you have any training in the intelligible original languages of the Text?

In counter response to your presentation, you're attempting to detach "speaking" from "magnifying" - the clear connection of two genitive masculine participles - in a way that forces separation of them in order to make your presupposition work.

To provide a little more structural insight, the "gar-for" at the beginning of Acts10:46 is explaining the pouring out of the Spirit in Acts10:45. The speaking & magnifying evidencing the pouring of the Spirit, had to be understood to be an intelligible sign of the Spirit. So, either this is like Acts2 where everyone was hearing in languages they understood, or the Spirit was providing both the language(s) and the interpretation(s), or some other means of intelligibility.

If you want to force unintelligible tongues/language(s) into the verses without interpretation(s) then we might as well push some "holy laughter" and dog barking into them, so all done in the name of God is just to be accepted by everyone. Then we can have your 2 different things from your ambiguous "and" do the work for you.

It will still not be accepted by some of us and not based upon presupposition but on the structure of the language of the Text including the different meanings of "kai" not to mention the English "and". There are better tongues hills to die on than this one.

 

[studier]

I will say this, Rodney Howard Browne has denounced anything of people barking like dogs and when the event did occur, they were kicked out. The kundalini spirit is a made up term by cessationist as a derogatory term for Charismatic Christians. I have experienced Holy Laughter, and I have felt depression leave me in some of his meetings. I do believe that the move of the Spirit did occur, and they are great. I do believe people take things overboard as well! I think people are desperate and one of the things that our Charismatic Brothers and Sisters are in the wrong on is living by experience and not by the word.

So, this "brother" renounced barking like dogs: (see link).

From what I'm seeing of your work in the Word, and if you feel comfortable referencing as a resource what I just linked, I'd question whether you're living by the Word or by experience.

 

[studier]

Lastly, I would go into the scriptures and exegete in Greek but as you know, that takes hours and I do have studies as well. I just simply do not have the time to go phrase by phrase. However, I would say that you are in dangerous waters attempting to read something in the text - if that were the case, then deliverance ministry is for today and a believer can be possessed by a demon (which I do not believe, but the theology is built solely on the principle you just stated. They read into the text and from that they produce a theology that is totally off base. It is the same principle).

Here we go. Not unexpected and it didn't take long.

I can tell you have very little to no training in Greek exegesis. It took me minutes to go through the Greek manuscripts for Acts10 including pulling out some sentence diagramming references to check other's views of the grammatical structures there. You've had all this writing time to just note that "kai" means, "and" which is available in basic interlinear review, and you can't discuss and reason through the various meanings of this basic conjunction.

And we're right back to fallacious argumentation methods. Rather than deal strictly with the Text, you've gone from claiming that I interpret incorrectly to suggesting I have a demon and need some charismatic deliverance ministry.

I've watched the methods of charismatic sects since my beginnings in Christ. I got pulled into it to a degree and at a point was shown how empty and absurd most of it is. I lived near the old TBN headquarters in S.CA and was surrounded by charismatic offshoots. I watched and listened to them rail against the "theologians" - basically just criticizing those who our Lord had actually working in His Word - and then to counter scholarship they began to have their own charismatic Dr. so and so.

I really enjoyed the brief watch of the RHB video I linked. Brought back old memories of the greatly edifying instruction in God's Word provided by such "ministries". Are you headed to ORU? I can tell you about an interesting very near encounter I had with Richard one day in sunny S.CA.

Here's some edifying "holy laughter" for our enjoyment. Probably before your time.

 

[Taylorj2]

Then you will not understand the parables, which employ allegory (a story or literary device where characters, events, and settings represent deeper, symbolic meanings beyond the literal narrative). It's a way to convey moral or spiritual truths through symbolic representations rather than straightforward statements.
Meditate on John 16:25 & 29. Truth can be conveyed via both literal and figurative language.

Actually, some do and some do not. Allegory is the way that the Church interpreted the parables up until the time of Martin Luther who pushed back. The Parable of Talents is a double indirect narrative parable.

 

[Taylorj2]

So, this "brother" renounced barking like dogs: (see link).

From what I'm seeing of your work in the Word, and if you feel comfortable referencing as a resource what I just linked, I'd question whether you're living by the Word or by experience.

Very powerful, love tongues and their use.

 

[Taylorj2]

Don't like the agree to disagree phrase, but I do understand when someone wants to drop out early.

Do you have any training in the intelligible original languages of the Text?

In counter response to your presentation, you're attempting to detach "speaking" from "magnifying" - the clear connection of two genitive masculine participles - in a way that forces separation of them in order to make your presupposition work.

To provide a little more structural insight, the "gar-for" at the beginning of Acts10:46 is explaining the pouring out of the Spirit in Acts10:45. The speaking & magnifying evidencing the pouring of the Spirit, had to be understood to be an intelligible sign of the Spirit. So, either this is like Acts2 where everyone was hearing in languages they understood, or the Spirit was providing both the language(s) and the interpretation(s), or some other means of intelligibility.

If you want to force unintelligible tongues/language(s) into the verses without interpretation(s) then we might as well push some "holy laughter" and dog barking into them, so all done in the name of God is just to be accepted by everyone. Then we can have your 2 different things from your ambiguous "and" do the work for you.

It will still not be accepted by some of us and not based upon presupposition but on the structure of the language of the Text including the different meanings of "kai" not to mention the English "and". There are better tongues hills to die on than this one.

No, it's pointless when somebody attempts to frame and push a narrative in the word when it simply is not there. There is no verse that says that the tongue was interpreted to support your claim. In your opinion and the way you are taught says that one must have an interpretation for tongues to exist, which I disagree.

Again, I do not have time to go into depth. Maybe over the winter break, but not at the moment.

 

[Howdy]

Daniel 9:27 is representative of the anti-Christ by most major scholars. Tamid represents the word daily in Daniel 12:11, and is in reference to Daniel 9:27.

Blessings, Howdy!

Most scholars are wrong.
When does the antichrist destroy the city?
tt is still standing when Jesus comes and an earthquake destroys a fifth of the city killing 7000.

 

[studier]

By the way, I did take two semesters of Greek and Greek exegesis as well. Though, again, I just don't have the time to get into deep exegesis of the text. I hope you will understand that, I'm doing my final this week on the Parable of the Talents!

I'm sure you're very busy.

 

[studier]

No, it's pointless when somebody attempts to frame and push a narrative in the word when it simply is not there.

You do understand that I agree with this, correct?

It's also pointless to ask a presupposition filled young student to do some work on grammatical structures and meanings of conjunctions when he admittedly has no time to do the work, yet he or she has the time to put forth allegations that another who's doing the work cannot interpret correctly and needs demonic deliverance.

You can comprehend why this suggests very little credibility, no?

here is no verse that says that the tongue was interpreted to support your claim.

No need to tell you about the grammar and syntax again. You can't see what you can't see.

In your opinion and the way you are taught says that one must have an interpretation for tongues to exist, which I disagree.

It's actually not my opinion. I simply disagree with you about this section of Scripture. I'm aware of other sections of Scripture dealing with interpretations and instruction about such.

Again, I do not have time to go into depth. Maybe over the winter break, but not at the moment.

Sure. Take your time. I'll wait until winter and get some eisegete demon deliverance in the meantime.

 

[Howdy]

After reading this young man's post I believe he is relying on the teaching and writing of others and has not taken the time to question them and study for himself.
The first thing I say to anyone who comes into my Bible study class is never trust what anyone teaches, even me, until you have thoroughly study all Scripture related to the subject.

 

[Howdy]

After reading this young man's post I believe he is relying on the teaching and writing of others and has not taken the time to question them and study for himself.
The first thing I say to anyone who comes into my Bible study class is never trust what anyone teaches, even me, until you have thoroughly study all Scripture related to the subject.

Years ago I was talking with an old pastor and he said many teaching that do not agree with the Bible being taught today in many churches were brought in when churches began calling young men who had graduated from Bible schools.
Don't get me wrong. Education is great and if had the opportunity I would have attended.
But just because it is a Bible collage and the teachers have a few letters after their name does not mean they are never wrong and should not be challenged.

 

[Taylorj2]

You do understand that I agree with this, correct?

It's also pointless to ask a presupposition filled young student to do some work on grammatical structures and meanings of conjunctions when he admittedly has no time to do the work, yet he or she has the time to put forth allegations that another who's doing the work cannot interpret correctly and needs demonic deliverance.

You can comprehend why this suggests very little credibility, no?


No need to tell you about the grammar and syntax again. You can't see what you can't see.


It's actually not my opinion. I simply disagree with you about this section of Scripture. I'm aware of other sections of Scripture dealing with interpretations and instruction about such.


Sure. Take your time. I'll wait until winter and get some eisegete demon deliverance in the meantime.

1. I never said that you need demonic deliverance. I also realize that I have presuppositions, we all do. I do, however, attempt to put them to the side when I approach a subject. For instance, when I started Bible college in my bachelor's degree, I was way more charismatic then I am today. I find myself more reserved and lean a lot more on scriptural integrity than experiential. By the way, for your information, I am not young (THOUGH I WISH I WAS!)

2. We can agree to disagree on the scripture. That is fine. I believe, once more, tongues were spoken and it never says they were interpreted nor does it imply it in the Greek.

3. To go back to one, I said that if you go off of your reasoning is doing the same thing that people who believe Christians can be demonically possessed. They take a scripture, they twist it into what it does not say, and then propose that it means it can happen. Though the Bible may not say it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Inquisitor]

Tongues are for the Jews. They require a sign. In Acts 10, it was a sign to the Jews that the Gentiles were getting in on salvation through Christ.

No there not; tongues are for the Gentiles too.

Acts 10:44-46
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been
poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.

Mark 16:17
These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will
speak with new tongues.

Acts 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

Acts 19:6
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking
with tongues and prophesying. (disciples at Ephesus)

1 Corinthians 14
Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks
in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

1 Corinthians 14:39
Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.

 

[GWH]

Actually, some do and some do not. Allegory is the way that the Church interpreted the parables up until the time of Martin Luther who pushed back. The Parable of Talents is a double indirect narrative parable.

Well, I do not know how RC and ML interpreted the POT, but how do YOU understand it?