tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post4061793759965180188..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: The Gospel according to FoxworthyBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-17840883189632156842007-09-13T10:51:00.000-07:002007-09-13T10:51:00.000-07:00Dave said: "I was pointing out that sometimes its...Dave said: "I was pointing out that sometimes its better to ignore, and not get into an argument with folks of a different theological persuasion."<BR/><BR/>Christians can talk and discuss and still be respectful and kind. Arguing on the other hand is when people take pot-shots at others and call them disrespectful names.<BR/><BR/>Dave said: I never mentioned anything about "education" or "training".<BR/><BR/>You may not have noticed that someone else did suggest that there is a lack of education especially those people who disagree on this blog and I was pointed out as one of those who probably was not educated. I think it was just fine for Ryan to answer that wisdom comes from God and not all people who are wise in God's eyes are educated. God can use a poor and lowly vessel just as well as he can use a vessel that has more of what the world considers to a higher educational status. Praise God for that, eh?<BR/><BR/>When we show that we love Jesus and abide in his love, we can discuss issues of difference and still do it with grace. We should never shut down discussion even it there are differences. One of my favorite Pastors who has been in the ministry for 50 years said that he is open to learning from anyone even seemingly uneducated people because everyone has something that we can learn from. When there is a difference of opinion, it is an opportunity for us to learn how to understand someone else's point of view and compare it to scripture to see if it is compatible with the bible. That causes us to stretch and grow. Or else we can see the weakness of our own position and have the opportunity to find a better foundation for our opinion or perhaps even be humble enough to be corrected by the wisdom of others. Either way, we can disagree agreeably without calling people names.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-84637611822910023632007-09-13T10:17:00.000-07:002007-09-13T10:17:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Azulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798628683246077436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-59376474169209641432007-09-13T10:08:00.000-07:002007-09-13T10:08:00.000-07:00Uhmmm... dude... you seriously need to take a chil...Uhmmm... dude... you seriously need to take a chill pill.<BR/><BR/>I never mentioned anything about "education" or "training". <BR/><BR/>I was pointing out that sometimes its better to ignore, and not get into an argument with folks of a different theological persuasion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-62530695931527000542007-09-13T10:07:00.000-07:002007-09-13T10:07:00.000-07:00Ryan wrote: I also wonder how much theological tra...Ryan wrote: <I>I also wonder how much theological training the donkey who rebuked Balaam had... </I><BR/><BR/>Why yes, you are a jackass!Azulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798628683246077436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-90685531855104723792007-09-13T09:40:00.000-07:002007-09-13T09:40:00.000-07:00Dave wrote... "I just skip over certain folk's com...Dave wrote... "<I>I just skip over certain folk's comments because I know they don't have the same theological background that i do.</I>"<BR/><BR/>"Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were <I>uneducated and untrained</I> men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus" (Acts 4:13).<BR/><BR/>I also wonder how much theological training the donkey who rebuked Balaam had...Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04840861955922003252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-3249654775533969272007-09-13T09:21:00.000-07:002007-09-13T09:21:00.000-07:00Arthinian... thank you for speaking your mind.I ju...Arthinian... thank you for speaking your mind.<BR/><BR/>I just skip over certain folk's comments because I know they don't have the same theological background that i do. I used to frequent a website inhabited by those of a calvinistic persuasion, and finally decided after awhile that it was best to leave and go to a site (yeah Methoblog) that built me up, rather than tear me down.<BR/> Now however, I have 4 teens at home, so I'm somewhat immune to getting sucked into arguments...lol! (if you have teens you know what I mean...lol!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-89583967602795710542007-09-13T09:12:00.000-07:002007-09-13T09:12:00.000-07:00Athinian wrote... "...it is not simply about wrong...Athinian wrote... "<I>...it is not simply about wrong or right it is about the way you approach a discussion.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I want to clarify a comment I made on tolerance. Tolerance can apply to many things, but I think that what the Bible admonishes us to tolerate is what we consider to be imperfections in people and the things that make them unique including, it seems, the way they come across. Perhaps you do not like the way I approach a discussion, but it seems that it would be more productive for you to suggest what you feel is a better way, more aligned with scripture, than to try to silence me.<BR/><BR/>On the toleration of false ideas, the Bible does not command us to do this. In fact, false ideas can be spiritually harmful to people, which is why the apostle Paul told Timothy to command certain ones to stop preaching false doctrine. I am not making a judgment here, but a statement. This brings me to your next point...<BR/><BR/>Athinian wrote... "<I>A point to ponder..... Does believing the 'right things (by this i mean doctrines and propositions)' get you into heaven?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Clearly, it is not true that one must have a perfect or even a complete understanding of the propositional truth of Christ and His work in order to be saved. But Jesus definitely made propositions about His Godhood and that we must place our faith (active trust) in Him. I guess the question is, if you reject His propositions, can you have faith? Or, if you do have faith, how strong will that faith be and will it stand when put to the test?<BR/><BR/>Jesus does speak propositionally and expects us to accept His propositions and to obey them: "He who rejects Me <I>and does not receive My sayings</I>, has one who judges him; <B>the word I spoke</B> is what will judge him at the last day" (John 12:48).<BR/><BR/>One other note to Wayne...<BR/><BR/>Wayne wrote... "<I>...one could rightly say the gospel itself is a comedy.</I>"<BR/><BR/>While I agree with you in part because of how you defined comedy, I wanted to point out something that many people do not see. Paul said that his gospel (meaning good news) also contained judgement: "on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Rom 2:16). So again, both sides of the coin are part of the package, something we see consistently throughout the scriptures.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04840861955922003252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-74467953230340066712007-09-13T06:52:00.000-07:002007-09-13T06:52:00.000-07:00I said: "It appears wise, I think, to have balance...I said: "It appears wise, I think, to have balance in all of these writings so that someone can clearly understand Ben from these posts too without having to go back to other writings."<BR/><BR/>arthinian said: "If you really want to challenge Bens views...Engage in the Academic World (which i doubt neither of you are qualified for or have the credentials to do so)and take him on there not on his blog where we all take it for what it is. Realise this is not your own personal space to look 'educated'"<BR/><BR/>Since I have rarely ever posted except mostly on the one post where Ben challenged Matthew's view of the virgin birth as his own personal interpretation of Isaiah instead of it being the actual interpretation, I think you have bull dozed over me regarding what has been a very charitable discussion. When a person's views are not up for challenge then they are suspect. I don't think Ben minds such a thoughtful challenge. As a professor I am sure he is used to reasoning through his interpretation.<BR/><BR/>As far as engaging in the academic world, I have done that with Ben. I have respected him enough to ask for his review of my DVD thesis on women in ministry called "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?"<BR/>It is a subject that Ben is very interested in and he too has fought for the freedom for women to serve in ministry. I am still waiting to hear back from him, but the fact that I chose him as one of the few to get a review copy shows that I must not be treating him as you suggest.<BR/><BR/>I have also read Ryan's comments and although Ryan is also very passionate for the full inspiration of scripture, he has had some very thoughtful comments and questions and he has not been unkind. If there have not been any questions or challenges on Ben's blog before, my question would be why not?<BR/><BR/>I also appreciate that Ben allowed a challenge regarding his interpretation of the leaven. He admitted that he was mistaken and that was a blessing to see someone humble enough to do that.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-32712254243348830432007-09-13T00:30:00.000-07:002007-09-13T00:30:00.000-07:00Like i said ryan, it is not simply about wrong or ...Like i said ryan, it is not simply about wrong or right it is about the way you approach a discussion. I have no problem with people who disagree, just those that wish to diagree on absolutly everything in order to be 'right'. Look through your posts Ryan and i am sure you will see that the majority of your posts are trying to get Ben or others to see your view as the 'right' view. All i am asking is to realise that this is a 'public' forum that 'all' are welcome to have there opinion without you slamming everything that people say. Part of learning and dialoging is realising when you are wrong, out of your depth, and out of line and pulling back the reigns and self evaluating. <BR/>I am not suggesting everyone accept my views, having said that, i do not post comments on everyone else comments, and rarely post at all on this site. I do not want to get into an argument on bens blog, i was just pointing out my own view of what often takes place and is frustrating for many of us. You do what you want with my comments, i do not intend them to be vicious, simply upfront and honest. <BR/>A point to ponder..... <BR/>Does believing the 'right things(by this i mean doctrines and propositions)' get you into heaven?<BR/>PeaceCPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-44827938934654832132007-09-12T23:48:00.000-07:002007-09-12T23:48:00.000-07:00Arthinian wrote... "Ben and Cheryl, there is a dif...Arthinian wrote... "<I>Ben and Cheryl, there is a difference between discussing a blog post and trying to indoctrinate this blog with your own personal views (of which in my opinion are narrow minded and wrong most of the time).</I>"<BR/><BR/>But of course you are not trying to indoctrinate me with your personal views now, are you? It would seem that if you believe you are right and that there are ramifications to what you believe that it is only natural to try to share your thoughts and convince others. As far as I can tell, Ben owns this blog; he is the only one who can post. The comments are free and open to anybody... that is in a free-thinking society. And I don't think I am being uncivil though I might have points of disagreement. You would do well to note that tolerance is meaningless if it only has to do with those who agree with you and are your personal buddies. It only has meaning only when it comes to how one deals with those with whom he disagrees.<BR/><BR/>Wayne wrote... "<I>Comedy is the story that has a happy ending, the story in which the central character triumphs over his adversaries.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Wayne, I appreciate your comments and well stated. If taken this way, it is perfectly compatible with the gospel. But of course, the gospel contains both tragedy and comedy (as you defined it), since it speaks about the judgment of unbelievers and the salvation of those who believe. I think we should remember that it is a two-sided coin that cannot be separated.<BR/><BR/>Then again, and Ben can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that this particularly the kind of comedy Ben was referring to in this post.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04840861955922003252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-28716114919327808632007-09-12T23:36:00.000-07:002007-09-12T23:36:00.000-07:00Amen and thank you ArthinianAmen and thank you ArthinianPeleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00755035158890644752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-50236017348595408892007-09-12T22:42:00.000-07:002007-09-12T22:42:00.000-07:00I agree with Gib. I feel that Ryan and Cheryl are ...I agree with Gib. I feel that Ryan and Cheryl are constantly hijacking this blog and trying to corner Ben on every post...i am tired of it. Ben and Cheryl, there is a difference between discussing a blog post and trying to indoctrinate this blog with your own personal views (of which in my opinion are narrow minded and wrong most of the time). I am sure if you were to look at your own theological heritage and look at Bens, you would most surely see that you come from a different position and there lies your tension. Be fair...this is Bens blog and he does not need to be challenged about his views or about everything he posts. If you took the time to read his work you would find many of the answers and positions he holds as clear as day. Please...do not consume this blog with your attempts to change everyones views to be inline with yours. Discussion is fine, but my friends and I get tired of both of you nit picking peoples responses. If you really want to challenge Bens views...Engage in the Academic World (which i doubt neither of you are qualified for or have the credentials to do so)and take him on there not on his blog where we all take it for what it is. Realise this is not your own personal space to look 'educated'<BR/>Enough said....CPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-3686210094611195422007-09-12T21:43:00.000-07:002007-09-12T21:43:00.000-07:00Ben, great post. I was raised in a small redneck t...Ben, great post. I was raised in a small redneck town and my father used to go coon hunting. And I enjoy a good laugh.<BR/><BR/>Ryan, If I hear you correctly, I appreciate what you are trying to say: the gospel should not be taken lightly.<BR/><BR/>But perhaps a consideration of the classic definition of comedy really could help ease your mind. Comedy is the story that has a happy ending, the story in which the central character triumphs over his adversaries. This is of course in juxtaposition to tragedy which has a somber theme, usually a story of a good person destined to destruction because of some conflict or character flaw. So in the classic sense of Greek comedy and tragedy, one could rightly say the gospel itself is a comedy.<BR/><BR/>And it is okay to laugh sometimes. It took me a long time to believe that; but its true.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>WayneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-83405868948090234242007-09-12T21:40:00.000-07:002007-09-12T21:40:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-33512863872476855262007-09-12T12:31:00.000-07:002007-09-12T12:31:00.000-07:00gib said: "But this is a blog post for crying out...gib said: "But this is a blog post for crying out loud. Dr. Witherington has both the published materials and educational credentials that speak to his "seriousness" in regards to interpretation. I would wrestle with those materials and then ask for a defense before basing my assessment of his views of Scripture on a blog post."<BR/><BR/>Many more people will read these blog posts then will read Ben's other written materials. It appears wise, I think, to have balance in all of these writings to that someone can clearly understand Ben from these posts too without having to go back to other writings. Writing with clarity in mind is a good goal and answering questions to clarify any wrong understanding is helpful. That is what is so great about these blogs. They are interactive while other writings are not.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-68753598181609615112007-09-12T09:45:00.000-07:002007-09-12T09:45:00.000-07:00Ryan,I appreciate you earnestness in interpretatio...Ryan,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate you earnestness in interpretation, but don't you think that elevating "seriousness" as it pertains to hermeneutics is a little much? Can't Dr. Witherington have some mild fun on his blog without having to defend it? Is he a heretic for posting something light-hearted? Have you read his commentaries regarding the issues your want clarification on? That may help you understand his position "in seriousness" regarding the texts that you call into question.<BR/><BR/>I wholeheartedly agree that we take the interpretation of the Scriptures seriously. But this is a blog post for crying out loud. Dr. Witherington has both the published materials and educational credentials that speak to his "seriousness" in regards to interpretation. I would wrestle with those materials and then ask for a defense before basing my assessment of his views of Scripture on a blog post.<BR/><BR/>Seriousness...the new circumcision?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04575015442190890105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-64423316623273210582007-09-12T09:23:00.000-07:002007-09-12T09:23:00.000-07:00Ben, thanks for your explanations, especially of M...Ben,<BR/> thanks for your explanations, especially of Mk 4, that make so much more sense to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-15719794739239605732007-09-12T07:49:00.000-07:002007-09-12T07:49:00.000-07:00-heraclitus- wrote... "as much as i like to valida...-heraclitus- wrote... "<I>as much as i like to validate the importance of the understanding of the bible, i think this is all a bit over the top, the parable of lost sheep explains my point, there are so many lost souls out there that are more important to god than us debating over whether we are interpreting his word right, allthough as i said i like to think it is important, it should not occupy our time too much.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I understand your sentiments, but I don't believe we are wasting time by trying to understand the scriptures and what God intended through the parables and how He communicated the gospel. Clearly, unless you interpret God's word correctly, what you tell 'lost souls' might be untrue and misleading. If you think that the parables are comedic stories intended to get a smile on people's faces and merriness in their hearts, how do you think this will change how you reach out to them and their interpretation of the seriousness of heart change? The Holy Spirit was not sent to make men's hearts merry, but to "convict the world of sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin because they do not believe in Me...and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged" (John 16:8-11).<BR/><BR/>I can have a good time too, and am not against it. But when someone says that the gospel and the parables are full of comedy as though we are doing God's work by making people laugh when telling them the serious things of God which matter to their eternal destiny, then I am compelled to speak. So sorry if I sound so serious, but honestly... this is no laughing matter.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04840861955922003252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-21759851397148275192007-09-12T07:34:00.000-07:002007-09-12T07:34:00.000-07:00Ben wrote... "Ryan: This is a misreading of Mk. 4/...Ben wrote... "<I>Ryan: This is a misreading of Mk. 4/ Mt. 13 as to the purpose of the parables. They are intended to indicate to the unrepentant that they will not understand unless and until they repent or turn, which is what the text says, and how the Isaiah quote functions in the Gospel text. A better translation of the Greek would be 'seeing you will not see... unless you turn..'</I>"<BR/><BR/>Ben, I agree with what you wrote above, but I do not believe I am misreading Jesus when I say that He is using parables to veil the truth from those who did not believe. Until this point (as indicated by the reaction of His disciples), He was speaking plainly. However, as a careful reading of the context will show, the Pharisees began to actively try to kill Jesus in Matt 12.<BR/><BR/>Matt 12:2, they accuse His disciples of doing what is not lawful on the sabbath.<BR/>Matt 12:10, they try to trap Jesus by asking Him if it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath.<BR/>Matt 12:14-16, "The Pharisees conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and He healed them all, and warned them not to tell who He was." Why is He warning people not to tell others that He is the Messiah? Because they are looking to kill Him because of this fact.<BR/>Matt 12:24, "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.'" They accuse Him of being satanic and therefore a deceiver.<BR/>Matt 12:38, "Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, 'Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.' But He answered and said to them, 'An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet.'"<BR/>Matt 12:41-42, "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it... The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it..."<BR/><BR/>THIS is the context behind Jesus' words in Matthew 13:11-17. Jesus is dividing people, drawing those who believe to Himself and hardening the rest in whom Isaiah 6 is being fulfilled. Did Jesus not understand the context of what was written in Isaiah 6:9-13? Surely He did. In this text it is clear that Isaiah was initially called to "make the hearts of these people calloused". Isaiah knew what he was called to do because he inquired, "Lord, how long?" to which the Lord replied, "Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant...and the land is utterly desolate." The Lord was coming in judgment to the people and taking away what little they thought they had. This is why Jesus said in Matt 13:12 "...but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him."<BR/><BR/>Can you show me from the text how I am misreading this?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04840861955922003252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-70768347208899617292007-09-12T05:19:00.000-07:002007-09-12T05:19:00.000-07:00as much as i like to validate the importance of th...as much as i like to validate the importance of the understanding of the bible, i think this is all a bit over the top, the parable of lost sheep explains my point, there are so many lost souls out there that are more important to god than us debating over whether we are interpreting his word right, allthough as i said i like to think it is important, it should not occupy our time too much._Crispus_https://www.blogger.com/profile/11587831006049255413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-74379624950020405762007-09-11T21:30:00.000-07:002007-09-11T21:30:00.000-07:00Ben,It may be pure fiction about the gate where a ...Ben,<BR/><BR/>It may be pure fiction about the gate where a camel needs to kneel, but whatever the proverb means, it was common knowledge that it expressed something that was impossible.<BR/><BR/>Barnes says: This was a proverb in common use among the Jews, and is still common among the Arabians.<BR/><BR/>And Adam Clarke said: "There is an expression similar to this in the Koran. “The impious, who in his arrogance shall accuse our doctrine of falsity, shall find the gates of heaven shut: nor shall he enter there till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle. It is thus that we shall recompense the wicked.” Al Koran. Surat vii. ver. 37.<BR/>It was also a mode of expression common among the Jews, and signified a thing impossible."<BR/><BR/>So even though Jesus was talking about something impossible, it was a *common* thing he used so that they all understood.<BR/><BR/>You said: "A good shepherd would not normally leave the 99 unguarded to go after one."<BR/><BR/>Yet again Jesus used a common saying. Adam Clarke says "Leaving the ninety and nine, and seeking the One strayed sheep: - This was a very common form of speech among the Jews, and includes no mystery" I would also add that there was a fold and nothing said in the parable about the shepherd's actions putting the other sheep at risk. The parable actually seems to suggest that the 99 were already safe and the only one who was at risk was the one that was lost.<BR/><BR/>You said: "A good father would not send his only Son to collect the rent if he knew his servants had been abused or killed on previous attempts,"<BR/><BR/>Yet the parable says that the Father expected that the vine-growers would respect his son as his authority even if they did not respect the servants. That is not an abnormal expectation.<BR/><BR/>You said: "a good farmer would not scatter seed on the path or on ground that had no chance of producing a crop"<BR/><BR/>Yet the parable doesn't say that the farmer purposed to scatter see on the road, but that some of the seed fell there. With a bag of seed on your shoulder and a dip into the bag and a scattering of seed, certainly it is reasonable that some seed would fall on ground that is unsuitable. This again was a common occurrence because of the way that they scattered seed by hand.<BR/><BR/>You said: "the crop yield suggested in Mk. 4 is out of the realm of the normal, indeed beyond what appears to have been possible back then"<BR/><BR/>The mustard seed certainly would fit this yield (Matt 13:31)<BR/><BR/>You also said: "no you don't use a year's wages worth of flour to do a particular baking"<BR/><BR/>I am not sure where you get this from that the flour would be a year's wages, but since the flour used in the parable would feed about 100 people, this would be very reasonable amount for someone who does baking for a living, wouldn't you think? Still seems within reason of "normal" to me.<BR/><BR/>Lastly you said: "these parables are not realistic in many cases in regard to at least one feature, and the reason is that it is precisely in these abnormal features that there is a message about the miraculous Kingdom, not normal life."<BR/><BR/>Yet in every one of the parables you find normal activity of very normal people. A woman baking, a woman sweeping her house, a shepherd concerned about a lost sheep, a farmer, seed, bread, flour, yeast. All normal things that were used to express spiritual truths. I may be wrong here and could be corrected, but it seems to me that Jesus was an expert at taking the natural events that everyone could understand and drawing the connection to the supernatural. No one ever appeared to ask him what a sheep was, or a coin or leaven. His ability to use the natural things of this world was amazing. And another thing, we don't need to guess what the parables mean because Jesus tells us in scripture.<BR/><BR/>Your conclusion is that "abnormal behavior is recorded in these parables that tell us something about the Kingdom or God." I don't think that it is abnormal behavior at all. Strong's says about the word parable: "fictitious narrative (of common life conveying a moral)"<BR/><BR/>So a parable involves a narrative of common life. Again we have the "common" theme again. *Common* things for *common* people, yet beneath the surface was an amazing lesson about the kingdom of God.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-30650237218573284422007-09-11T21:02:00.000-07:002007-09-11T21:02:00.000-07:00the link by dave to a t-shirt at cafepress is quit...the link by dave to a t-shirt at cafepress is quite funny. thanks for that dave. i have a little story about another t-shirt i have and a couple responses indicating senses of humor and the lack thereof of fellow christians. <BR/><BR/>the quote on the shirt says "My boss is a Buddhist Electrician". an obvious pun off that famous old christian bumper sticker/t-shirt. which to me, is quite funny.<BR/><BR/>i attend a christian school out here in east texas and was wearing that shirt last week. one friend of mine did not like it too much but we didn't really talk about why. although i imagine it was offensive to him because it made fun of something "christians" had made up. i expected as much from him. and then the head of the bible department, who is also one of my professors, told me he thought the shirt was hilarious.<BR/><BR/>just two examples of how some christians have no sense of humor about themselves and don't really know how to place things in the proper cultural context. <BR/><BR/>and to ryan, that passage in acts isn't funny to the people in the text, it's funny to me. you've got to loosen up a little man and laugh. i wasn't trying to be theological or exegetical. it's just funny.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04099996632223045423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-61252591354492118302007-09-11T18:47:00.000-07:002007-09-11T18:47:00.000-07:00Hi Cheryl:It is pure fiction that there was a need...Hi Cheryl:<BR/><BR/>It is pure fiction that there was a needle gate through which a camel could pass. And in fact it is precisely the point at which abnormal behavior is recorded in these parables that tell us something about the Kingdom or God. A good shepherd would not normally leave the 99 unguarded to go after one. A good father would not send his only Son to collect the rent if he knew his servants had been abused or killed on previous attempts, a good farmer would not scatter seed on the path or on ground that had no chance of producing a crop. Even Palestinian farmers today don't do that though they are desperate for a crop, and the crop yield suggested in Mk. 4 is out of the realm of the normal, indeed beyond what appears to have been possible back then and no you don't use a year's wages worth of flour to do a particular baking, so no, these parables are not realistic in many cases in regard to at least one feature, and the reason is that it is precisely in these abnormal features that there is a message about the miraculous Kingdom, not normal life. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-81937542300498054332007-09-11T18:00:00.000-07:002007-09-11T18:00:00.000-07:00Ben,Thanks for the explanation. Please permit me ...Ben,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the explanation. Please permit me a moment to share a chuckle. It appeared to me that what you were doing to the text was a big job of hermen-noodle-ics :)<BR/><BR/>Oh and by the way, I think the women had a big crowd to bake for. I used to bake all my bread and I would make a batch that used 20 lbs of flour at a time. The woman only used about twice as much as I did so it just seemed to me that she did baking for a business. Mighty strong hands she must have had and I'll bet she had a few helpers! <BR/><BR/>And about the yeast - I could get away with 1 tablespoon of yeast for 10 loaves of bread. It took a lot longer to rise, but my bread was still lovely and light and it suited me just fine because as a young mom I found yeast to be expensive and I was frugal enough to be willing to wait for the bread to take all day to rise.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-35842793143651791832007-09-11T16:23:00.000-07:002007-09-11T16:23:00.000-07:00Cheryl and Ryan-- Yikes, what I meant was that the...Cheryl and Ryan-- Yikes, what I meant was that the amount of dough, not the amount of leaven, was enormously out of proportion to what any woman would use to make any such bread item. 3 pecks is more than a super-sizing of the flour used. Its a ridiculously large amount, but of course the point is a little kingdom goes a long way to leavening a huge society. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the question. <BR/><BR/> BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.com