Parables are an exceedingly common narrative style. Many "have been recorded" to have taught in parables, across multiple cultures, along almost the entirety of the vast ocean of time that we have been telling stories. People still tell (and write) parables - to this very day.....

Probably a minor nitpick to you Drich, but to me..well, stop maligning our common human aptitude for storytelling.

(July 29, 2012 at 10:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Parables are an exceedingly common narrative style. Many "have been recorded" to have taught in parables, across multiple cultures, along almost the entirety of the vast ocean of time that we have been telling stories. People still tell (and write) parables - to this very day.....

Probably a minor nitpick to you Drich, but to me..well, stop maligning our common human aptitude for storytelling.

Do you have any biblical examples of Parables being used outside of the one Christ used in the bible?

I do not doubt the effectivness of parables, I simply pointed out a fact.

I'm sorry, was your contention that no one in the biblical narrative (assuming you mean the NT)-other than the character of christ- leveraged a parable? If so, then I misread your statement. On the other hand, every third person story about christ actually qualifies as a parable.......so, you probably don't understand what a parable is.... In the same way that you might see Hare or Briar Rabbit as a recurring character in a great many fables, you see christ as a recurring character in a great many parables.

Stories within stories within stories.

Or- are you asking me here to show you that someone other than chirst used a parable -from within the biblical narrative- as though that would have some impact on whether or not people used parables outside of the narrative, you know, in the real world?

I hate to have to ask....but with you, I'm afraid I really can't tell sometimes.

(July 29, 2012 at 11:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm sorry, was your contention that no one in the biblical narrative (assuming you mean the NT)-other than the character of christ- leveraged a parable? If so, then I misread your statement.

Sometimes a rose is just a rose.

That's nice, so what type of rose are we talking about then, the rose that didn't understand what a parable was, or the rose that insists that it had to have happened in the bible to have happened at all?

(July 30, 2012 at 1:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: That's nice, so what type of rose are we talking about then, the rose that didn't understand what a parable was, or the rose that insists that it had to have happened in the bible to have happened at all?

(July 30, 2012 at 1:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: I misread your statement.

Yet you managed to be incorrect for entirely different reasons nevertheless.

Let me lay this out plainly for you -The authors of the NT were telling and teaching with parables. How's that for a "biblical example"..the bible.

(July 29, 2012 at 1:05 pm)Drich Wrote: Let's address your 'interpertation' of Romans 8:26 first, because it has nothing to do with, Paul not knowing how to pray (as several of your post depend on this statement.)

26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us[b] with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.


Paul is teaching if one does not know what to ask for in prayer, the Holy Spirit intercedes. In otherwords He is teaching that prayer is not to be a repetitious chant. (which is also taught be Christ, for the Lord's prayer is not to be a vain excersize in repetition)

The rest of your post tells me you simply do not understand the difference between what an evangelist does in/for the Church, and what someone like Paul (an elder) would do for the church. You seem stuck on the fact that all the church should do is preach the gospel and not engaged in life beyond the life and events surrounding Christ's life. That Christianity has no place in the practical lives of it's established believers beyond establishing and reinforcing the Gospel message, over and over and over again despite how or what it's members struggle with.

That is why I left the passage from Hebrews about milk/meat. When we are young in the faith we need the milk of the word. This amounts to the gospel message, but inorder to grow in our faith we need more than to hear about the life and times of Jesus over and over again. Like 1 cor 7 is about how a Christian should view marriage. Why? Because outside of what Christ said about divorce there is nothing else to go on. The Book of Romans speaks in detail of the nature of Christ sacrifice bought us. Why? Because evidently even though the brothers in Rome have heard the gospel or milk of the word over and over again they were still defaulting to a works based form of righteousness. In short they thought we were to earn Merritt our way to heaven by doing good deeds. Something Christ touched on but did not go into the detail the romes specifically needed to separate their deed from the Grace given by Christ... And on and on to each of the title regions Paul was attributed to writing to.

Paul's role in the Church was not one of an evangelist. (One who spends his time converting new believers) His role was that of an elder. (Meeting the needs of the established Church by taking the message and philosophies that the word and works of Christ affords and applying them to everyday life.) As such the milk or the stuff the noobs need for faith and belief, (all the stuff you are clamoring about) is intentionally set aside inorder to spiritually nourish established believers with spot on spiritual direction and advise.

Sure, I can see how this traditional explanation of St. Paul works given the circumstances. Do you have any scripture to back this up at all?

Whether all of this is true or not doesn't really help because my position renders the question 'were there witnesses to Jesus' pointless much like the same question is useless when asked for Harry Potter. I guess much of Christianity cuts both ways in that one can give the explanation that has been fed to the masses over the centuries OR one can realise that the culture of the time is what made e.g. Paul's beliefs plausible even though Jesus might not have existed.

(July 30, 2012 at 8:01 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Sure, I can see how this traditional explanation of St. Paul works given the circumstances. Do you have any scripture to back this up at all?

Yes, In every letter Paul has been attributed to write He starts out with a personal greeting to a Church in a given region he created or helped create. which places him in a position of leadership/eldership in that Church. Then their is the fact the bodies of his various works address the specific problems a given Church has. remember because these people are not random citizens and because they are all apart of an established churches it places Paul in a position of a shepard of a flock and not in a place where he needs to evangelize to unbelievers.

Quote:Whether all of this is true or not doesn't really help because my position renders the question 'were there witnesses to Jesus' pointless much like the same question is useless when asked for Harry Potter. I guess much of Christianity cuts both ways in that one can give the explanation that has been fed to the masses over the centuries OR one can realise that the culture of the time is what made e.g. Paul's beliefs plausible even though Jesus might not have existed.

I guess it comes down to a Matter of FAITH and what you simply want to believe.. Know the 'defense of Paul's work has never one been taught or explained to me. Probably because no one up until you has every questioned why Paul went in a different direction than the gospels. I guess for most it is a simple matter of common sense, in that why would paul need to evanglize to established believers? Plus none of the other books (written by John and Peter and the unknown authors) also take a shepards role in addressing specific problems in a given church and not the position of simply restating the gospel message over and over despite the problem being faced.

So now you're all about what you characterize as "common sense"...what happened to scripture?

Why would Paul need to evangelize to established believers, what a wonderful question. Why would he need to, why would they have the questions they apparently had in the frst place -what with being established believers (whatever the hell that means in the first place). More importantly, why does he seem to be incapable of reminding them of the narratives which you assume they (and he) would have already been aware of?