The Parable of the Talents

[BvBPL]

My name is Andrew Jackson AKA Queen Elizabeth II AKA George Washington. Please deposit any bills or coins you have containing my name and or likeness into your bank account and then deposit into a Paypal. Just PM me your understanding and acceptance of these terms along with a credit card number.

I think you're a loonie.

 

[Harv]

Okay. PM'd. But I forgot to tell you the three-digit code on the back of the card is 666.

 

[Agent327]

No, we do not know that. You are giving this a very Greek influenced interpretation, linear and literal.

The Kingdom of Heaven isn't Greek at all. That simply makes no sense.

The judgment of the chapter could be the Romans destroying the Temple and killing half the inhabitants. That event fits the descriptions of the chapter. If he were truly talking about the end of the world, running to the hills would have no value.

A less literal interpretation also works. The generation could refer to his disciples, ie the Church. The kingdom comes once for everyone.

No, it could not. Jesus had as much knowledge of a church as he had of sacraments. One of the most traumatic non-events of early Christianity was that the announced Kingdom did not come (it still hasn't, so for us it's hard to comprehend the magnitude of their disappointment).

And by the way, temples don't have inhabitants. Towns and countries do.

Lots of issues I have with this, but the short of it is, I have to go along with Jayhawk (do good things ever come out of Lawrence?).

First, your claim that the things of Matthew 24 didn't happen in that generation. They did.

No, they didn't. The events you mention had little influence on Christianity - but plenty of effect on Judaism.

Second, while the falsehood of interpreting the Bible in light of modern things is a valid one, the thing with the talents is not one of them. The reason we today call talents God-given abilities we are born with--that comes from this very parable. Everyone knows it's a parable, and everyone knows the significant unit of money stands for something which GOD regards as precious. And the gifts you are born with are actually more valuable than the money. This has been widely accepted, and that is how we have the word today.

I guess you missed the explanation where in the older version there is mention of minas, not talents.

Third, the real reason Jesus was not Christian is because the term "Christian" literally means "little Christ". It was actually a derisive term.

No, it doesn't, and yes, it was. Which is neither here nor there. Christianos means followers of Christ. There's nothing 'little' in it.

Of course Jesus can't be a little Christ--He's the Christ. The original. His Jewish ancestry was simply to reach people. So if the Jewish religion takes another direction, that is Judaism straying from Him--not Him straying from Judaism. He is not a follower of Judaism: He is King of the Jews.

A fine example of Hineininterpretierung. None of what you just said would have had any meaning to the Jesus that walked on Earth. Even the name Christ isn't Jewish, it's the Greek version of mashiach (a word Jesus would surely recognize). Lastly, claiming Jesus was not a follower of Judaism is bizarre. He was, in fact, a very devout Jew. Read your gospels. He came to fulfill the Law. You can't get any more Judaic than that. (Your claim that the Jews strayed form Jesus is equally bizarre. The fact that Jesus, while on Earth, had a limited following, was intentional: he preached to Jews, and his teaching had a very limited effect and reach. He rarely left Galilee.)

 

[Kyriakos]

A fine example of Hineininterpretierung. None of what you just said would have had any meaning to the Jesus that walked on Earth. Even the name Christ isn't Jewish, it's the Greek version of mashiach (a word Jesus would surely recognize). Lastly, claiming Jesus was not a follower of Judaism is bizarre. He was, in fact, a very devout Jew. Read your gospels. He came to fulfill the Law. You can't get any more Judaic than that. (Your claim that the Jews strayed form Jesus is equally bizarre. The fact that Jesus, while on Earth, had a limited following, was intentional: he preached to Jews, and his teaching had a very limited effect and reach. He rarely left Galilee.)

Isn't 'mashiach' more likely replaced with the rather glaringly similar (and Greek) term "messia(s)"? Which means 'mediator', btw. Christos means christened, ie anointed.

Not sure if Iesous (Jesus) is just jewish. Doesn't seem evidently tied to greek, and names routinely were just altered to sound closer to greek, while keeping the foreign syllables that obviously would have no etymology in greek itself.

As for Jesus' end, well, if he was a god (which is pretty much the point of christianity and the NT) then it would be rather bizarre of him to will to teach jews but utterly fail there. Gods do not tend to be argued to fail unwillingly, even by the tenuous theologies.
If Jesus is seen as a human, then it becomes a lot less significant to note just what he aimed to achieve.

Re mosaic law, Jesus himself in the gospels claims that the letter of the mosaic (ie judaic) law is dead if one keeps the OCD-filled hundreds of orders there, while it is alive if one has faith and is love-centered. Again, if Jesus is seen as a mere judaic teacher then his role is pretty minor there.

Frankly one has to doubt that a god would actually happen to care for a single 'race', and moreover a race like the archaic jewish people, who seem far likelier to have invented this kind of anti-hero and anti-human god in the style that Nietzsche argued in his works on the genealogy of christian ethics. "The revenge of the down-trodden, of the pariah, against life and positive powers of strength and healthy virtue" etc.

 

[onejayhawk]

The Kingdom of Heaven isn't Greek at all. That simply makes no sense.

Try your interpretation is over-influenced by Greek thinking. Among other things you are over literal and impervious to multiple meanings.

No, it could not. Jesus had as much knowledge of a church as he had of sacraments. One of the most traumatic non-events of early Christianity was that the announced Kingdom did not come (it still hasn't, so for us it's hard to comprehend the magnitude of their disappointment).

Your argument is non-sequitur (Greek, I know. Sorry). When Jesus said, "this generation", he was talking to Jews, not his church.

And by the way, temples don't have inhabitants. Towns and countries do.

For Judaism, the Destruction of the Temple, literally not one stone on another, was the defining event of the next 1000 years, or mopre. I also meant to incorporate the death of 1/2 the population of Judea and the diaspora of the Jews. All of these events would be summarized by the destruction of the temple. Work with me a little.

J

 

[Agent327]

Isn't 'mashiach' more likely replaced with the rather glaringly similar (and Greek) term "messia(s)"? Which means 'mediator', btw. Christos means christened, ie anointed.

Which would be more like mashiach then, wouldn't it?

Not sure if Iesous (Jesus) is just jewish. Doesn't seem evidently tied to greek, and names routinely were just altered to sound closer to greek, while keeping the foreign syllables that obviously would have no etymology in greek itself.

The Hebrew name of Jesus is the same as Joshua. Not particularly exclusive sounding.

As for Jesus' end, well, if he was a god (which is pretty much the point of christianity and the NT) then it would be rather bizarre of him to will to teach jews but utterly fail there. Gods do not tend to be argued to fail unwillingly, even by the tenuous theologies.
If Jesus is seen as a human, then it becomes a lot less significant to note just what he aimed to achieve.

Re mosaic law, Jesus himself in the gospels claims that the letter of the mosaic (ie judaic) law is dead if one keeps the OCD-filled hundreds of orders there, while it is alive if one has faith and is love-centered. Again, if Jesus is seen as a mere judaic teacher then his role is pretty minor there.

Which it was. Until Christians started spreading 'the word', Jesus was a non-entity. He doesn't appear in any Roman records.

Frankly one has to doubt that a god would actually happen to care for a single 'race', and moreover a race like the archaic jewish people, who seem far likelier to have invented this kind of anti-hero and anti-human god in the style that Nietzsche argued in his works on the genealogy of christian ethics. "The revenge of the down-trodden, of the pariah, against life and positive powers of strength and healthy virtue" etc.

This verges on the antijudaism practized since early Christianity to distinguish themselves from Jews proper. Not very original.

Try your interpretation is over-influenced by Greek thinking. Among other things you are over literal and impervious to multiple meanings.

The second time you mention this, and yet you fail to provide any substance.

Your argument is non-sequitur (Greek, I know. Sorry). When Jesus said, "this generation", he was talking to Jews, not his church.

Exactly. So what exactly is 'non sequitur? (Which is Latin, by the way.)

For Judaism, the Destruction of the Temple, literally not one stone on another, was the defining event of the next 1000 years, or mopre. I also meant to incorporate the death of 1/2 the population of Judea and the diaspora of the Jews. All of these events would be summarized by the destruction of the temple. Work with me a little.

While the first is just what I told you, the second lacks some evidence in situ. The only town of significence that was depopulated was jerusalem. The diaspora started with the Assyrians, who deported Hebrew elite to Babylon. (Common practice with neo-Assyrians.) So, no impact on Christianity then as I said.

I'm beginning to wonder why this discussion wasn't started on Plotinus' Ask A Theologian thread... Seems like the perfect subject matter.

 

[Kyriakos]

Plotinus by name is way too influenced by greek thinking, and therefore it would create a problem

 

[Agent327]

Ah, a joke. Jesus would appreciate. (People tend to underestimate his sense of humour - I don't know why....)

 

[onejayhawk]

Ah, a joke. Jesus would appreciate. (People tend to underestimate his sense of humour - I don't know why....)

Indeed. God famously has a great sense of humor, but no one takes it into account.

J

 

[Borachio]

What do you mean no one takes it into account?

I've long felt that the Garden of Eden thing was one huge hoax. "Whatever you do don't touch that tree over there, people... oops! Now what did I tell you? Out you go!"

And that's just in the begin-end.

Then there's the turning water into wine trick. "No wine left? Well, let them drink water... oops! That was the quickest fermentation ever."

And the feeding of the 5000. "So these people think they're going to get a free lunch do they? Let's shame them into getting their packed lunches out that they've hidden about their persons."

Walking on water? Just step right up and use these partially submerged stepping stones.

Yeah.

Now, I wouldn't say the jokes are especially gut-wrenching (maybe because of our long familiarity with them) but the Bible's not humourless stuff either.

 

[Kyriakos]

It helps if one is into macabre humour

 

[Colonel]

We should take all holy books around the world and burn them all. None should be allowed to survive.

 

[Borachio]

If you'll burn books, you'll burn people next.