Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Need Account Help?  Email   

Forgotten password reminders does not work. Contact the email above and state what you want your password changed to. (it must be at least 8 characters)

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Too Much Conjecture  (Read 4283 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4282
  • There are two kinds of cops.The quick and the dead
Too Much Conjecture
« on: August 16, 2006, 08:35:47 PM »

Dear Ron:
I am just amazed at how many thousands of detractors have written me just as you have, and made one accusation after another; accusing me of this and that, but have no proof, and just carelessly read my material and suppose that they are restating something that I have said.  I will waste my time once more just to show you that you have not a clue as to what you are talking about.  I will COMMENT in your email:

    > With reference to your paper on Lazarus and the rich man:
    > Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in
    > parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
    > Ray, to use this verse to prove that Jesus never spoke anything to the
    > multitudes without using parables is just not the case. This notation was
    > made only in reference to this particular setting as He spoke to them on
    > the Sea shore.

    COMMENT:  This was NOT the only setting where He taught only in Parables. In Matt. 15:10 Jesus spoke a parable to the "multitudes," and just like always, not even His disciples understood this parable (Verse 15). In Matt. 17:14 Jesus came to the multitude and spoke a parable about the mustard seed which neither they, nor the church today understands.  In Matt. 21:23 there came to Jesus the chief priests, elders of the people, and He again taught them in parables.  In verse 46 there congregated another multitude, and Jesus taught them only in parables (22:2-14). Etc., etc., etc.

    > There were many times when He spoke to the multitudes without using
    > parables:  Matt 13:54,

    COMMENT:  Excuse me, but just where in Matt. 13:54 does it say that Jesus taught them by NOT using parables?

     Mark chapter 7,

    COMMENT:  From Mark 7:1-13 Jesus is talking with the Pharisees, NOT THE MULTITUDES.  In verse 14 He does call a multitude, "ALL the people," but how does He teach this multitude?  Once again, he gives them a parable that not only they,  but once again, even His Own disciples did not understand (Verse 24).

     Matthew chapters 5, 6 & 7.

    COMMENT:  "And seeing the multitude, He went up into A MOUNTAIN: and when He was set, HIS DISCIPLES came unto Him: and He opened His mouth, and TAUGHT THEM [His disciples, not the multitude that He left behind down the mountain] saying" (Matt. 5:1-2).  Where was the multitude? At the bottom of the mountain.  Where was Christ?  UP in the mountain.  Who came to Jesus, the multitude?  NO, His disciples.  Who did He teach, the multitude? NO, His disciples. (Besides, anyone would be hard put to show me anything in this so-called sermon on the mount that cannot be considered symbolic, figurative, and parabolic language).

    > the four gospels He spoke and taught the people in the Synagogues without
    > using parables.

    COMMENT:  Oh really?  Show me one place where it says such a thing?

    > In all the cases where Jesus used a parable, it was identified in
    > scripture as a parable.

    COMMENT:  That is utter unscriptural nonsense!  Why even the prodigal son is NOT CALLED A PARABLE.  There are DOZENS of parables in the gospels which are not called "parables."  You just made that up.

     The story of Lazarus and the rich man was not
    > identified in scripture as being a parable.
    > Your reference to the wording "this parable" referring to more than one
    > parable that follows falls short of reasoning for the following reason.
    > The word "taute" translated to "this" is singulair in nature and
    > describes only one parable.

    COMMENT:  Once again, you have not a clue.  These five parts are ALL ONE PARABLE.  They are to be taken and understood as ONE, and that why Jesus called them "THIS parable:

    [1]  "What MAN...."

    [2]  "Either what WOMAN...."

    [3]  "A CERTAIN MAN...."

    [4]  "A CERTAIN RICH MAN...."

    [5]  "A CERTAIN RICH MAN...."

    You must be blind indeed to not see the absolutely singularity and continuity in "THIS parable...."  When you stand before the Judgment seat of Christ and He asks whether or not you could not see that this five-part teaching was all ONE PARABLE,  are you truthfully telling me that you will say: "Dah, ah, naw, I don't see anything that binds these all into one parable; one teaching."  Yah, right.

    > Your reference to the word "also" in Luke 16:1 means nothing. The word
    > "kai" which was translated to "also" could have been translated into
    > other words including "then" so it has no real value in making any point
    > whatsoever.

    COMMENT:  Oh get over yourself already.  It just galls me when people act foolish like this.  The word "also" is from the Greek "kai" and it means according to Dr. Strong:  "a primary particle having a COPULATIVE ...and CUMULATIVE force; and also, even so, then too" etc.  And no it could not be translated "then." Show me a version that translates this verse "then?" Go ahead, show me?

    > Your reference to Jesus speaking about a "certain man" leads to the start
    > of a parable is not valid in my mind. According to Webster a certain man
    > or a certain person not named or described is still a real person, a
    > definite person.

    COMMENT:  Wrong again, pale face.  "Certain" is translated from the Greek word "tis" and it means according to Dr. Strong: "An INDEFINITE pronoun; some or ANY PERSON or object; ANY MAN, ANY thing, ANY thing at all."  End of quote--CAPS are mine.  You see, Ron, when we have the word used in the Greek defined by HOW IT IS USED IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE, we don't need Webster's alternative definitions.

    > Ray, I barely started into this paper and found these references to be
    > stumbling blocks.

    COMMENT:  You Ron, are having trouble because you are stumbling over your own shadow!

    God be with you,


    PS   Try reading my papers to LEARN, rather than to assume everything you were taught by Mystery Babylon the Great is all truth and nothing but the truth.

     How can I possibly get by these to read the rest of the
    > paper, where you just might make some good points that I would like to
    > consider?
    > Way too much conjecture Ray.
    > Ron

Pages: [1]   Go Up

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 22 queries.