Patron Saint Joseph of Home Sales

[RND]

How do you explain these two verses if he's not talking about material wealth at all.

Luk 16:14 "The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. "

Luke 16:13 "You cannot serve God and money."

Many times Jesus uses actual, physical reality to describe the "spiritual" nature of the Kingdom of God. There is absolutely nothing here to convince me He did not do the same here. It's the difference between looking at the "actual" or "literal" application verses the "spiritual."

SteveF wrote:. If this is your understanding, I think you should retract your strong statement that kaufmannphillips' explanation is flaccid. I think his is a more natural reading and far from flaccid. Although it seems that yours is possible (at first blush) it requires more "reading into the passage" than his.

RND replied:.I guess I don't have to retract anything as yet! Whew! And I would definitely agree that what I read into the parables of Luke 15 and 16 is probably a little bit more than the average guy. For example, in the parable of the lost coin what do you think the missing coin out of 10 represents? How about the woman?

Luke 15:8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find [it]? 9 And when she hath found [it], she calleth [her] friends and [her] neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.

I fail to see how you can be so confident in your interpretation and refer to kaufmannphillips' as flaccid when yours if filled with speculation. I simply don't get it.

No opinion Steve? I simply don't get it.

[kaufmannphillips]

RND wrote:
Many times Jesus uses actual, physical reality to describe the "spiritual" nature of the Kingdom of God. There is absolutely nothing here to convince me He did not do the same here. It's the difference between looking at the "actual" or "literal" application verses the "spiritual."

So that's my problem. I've been looking at the actual, literal interpretation.

Gnosticism lives on, in various forms; it makes some people feel special and important, and lets some avoid having to deal with the actual, literal application.

============

I also found this little piece by Ellen G. White online: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... w-art5.htm .

[RND]

So that's my problem. I've been looking at the actual, literal interpretation.

I can't say whether you have a problem or not, but when it is obvious a particular verse or passage can have several meanings, literal or otherwise it behooves us to work as the Bereans did.

Gnosticism lives on, in various forms; it makes some people feel special and important, and lets some avoid having to deal with the actual, literal application.

So does that mean that anyone that looks for "deeper" meaning in the scriptures is a Gnostic? If so then I'll happily call myself a Gnostic! But I guess then my first minister, a Baptist minister, was a Gnostic in that he was the first to reveal to me that scripture has many meanings. Like buried treasure we find the true nuggets after digging for awhile. Literally, they are generally not found on the surface.

I also found this little piece by Ellen G. White online: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... w-art5.htm .

Excellent.

Matthew Henry commented:

"The unjust steward is not set before us as an example in cheating his master, or to justify any dishonesty, but to point out the careful ways of worldly men. It would be well if the children of light would learn wisdom from the men of the world, and would as earnestly pursue their better object. The true riches signify spiritual blessings; and if a man spends upon himself, or hoards up what God has trusted to him, as to outward things, what evidence can he have, that he is an heir of God through Christ? The riches of this world are deceitful and uncertain. Let us be convinced that those are truly rich, and very rich, who are rich in faith, and rich toward God, rich in Christ, in the promises; let us then lay up our treasure in heaven, and expect our portion from thence."

I wonder if Matthew Henry went to "Gnostic" schools!

[SteveF]

How do you explain these two verses if he's not talking about material wealth at all.

Luk 16:14 "The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. "

Luke 16:13 "You cannot serve God and money."

Many times Jesus uses actual, physical reality to describe the "spiritual" nature of the Kingdom of God. There is absolutely nothing here to convince me He did not do the same here. It's the difference between looking at the "actual" or "literal" application verses the "spiritual."

RND, I was not trying to convice you of anything. I was looking for you to exposit these verses in the light of your assertion. I was hoping you might be able to provide me with a different way of seeing these verses. I'm open to learning but you've simply made another asseration with no explanation related to these particular verses.

I also found this little piece by Ellen G. White online: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... w-art5.htm .

Excellent.

Matthew Henry commented:

"The unjust steward is not set before us as an example in cheating his master, or to justify any dishonesty, but to point out the careful ways of worldly men. It would be well if the children of light would learn wisdom from the men of the world, and would as earnestly pursue their better object. The true riches signify spiritual blessings; and if a man spends upon himself, or hoards up what God has trusted to him, as to outward things, what evidence can he have, that he is an heir of God through Christ? The riches of this world are deceitful and uncertain. Let us be convinced that those are truly rich, and very rich, who are rich in faith, and rich toward God, rich in Christ, in the promises; let us then lay up our treasure in heaven, and expect our portion from thence."

Do you have any response to the fact that Ellen White sees Jesus as referring to material wealth? I don't understand how you could simply say "excellent" when her view is more in line with kauffmannphillips.

In regards to Matthew Henry, I don't think there is anyone who disputes that Jesus is speaking of spiritual riches to be gained. If you read more of Henry's commentary (in regards to these verses) he repeatedly says that Jesus was speaking about how we handle material wealth in this world as well.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
So that's my problem. I've been looking at the actual, literal interpretation.

RND wrote:
I can't say whether you have a problem or not, but when it is obvious a particular verse or passage can have several meanings, literal or otherwise it behooves us to work as the Bereans did.

Just because the Bereans consulted their scriptures doesn't mean that their methodology or their conclusions were sound. Biblical interpreters of that era could be too innovative in their treatments of the text, e.g., Philo, Dead Sea pesharim, the epistle of Barnabas.

The issue is not what meanings a verse or passage can have, it's what meaning(s) it was intended to have in its context. Verses and passages can have meanings they were never intended to, when wrested out of context.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Gnosticism lives on, in various forms; it makes some people feel special and important, and lets some avoid having to deal with the actual, literal application.

RND wrote:
So does that mean that anyone that looks for "deeper" meaning in the scriptures is a Gnostic? If so then I'll happily call myself a Gnostic! But I guess then my first minister, a Baptist minister, was a Gnostic in that he was the first to reveal to me that scripture has many meanings. Like buried treasure we find the true nuggets after digging for awhile. Literally, they are generally not found on the surface.

Sure, your Baptist minister could have been gnostic. The disease crops up in various traditions. One symptom here is your diction: the true nuggets. For gnostics, their "special knowledge" supersedes the plain sense of the text, to the point of denigrating it.

RND wrote:
I wonder if Matthew Henry went to "Gnostic" schools!

I hear Kevin Garnett said "Anything's possible."

[RND]

RND, I was not trying to convice you of anything. I was looking for you to exposit these verses in the light of your assertion. I was hoping you might be able to provide me with a different way of seeing these verses. I'm open to learning but you've simply made another asseration with no explanation related to these particular verses.

I realize that Steve and I don't think my answer was contrary to what you were stating. I thought I did provide some explanation regarding Luke 16:13-14 in my comment to you as well. Granted, I didn't go into deep detail because I figured that if you're here you are not a "newbie" regarding scripture and know for yourself the many "spiritual" applications involving scripture, not just the parables.

In relation to my belief that Luke 16 (the entire chapter) is extremely intense in terms of spiritual application I see that in other parts of the Bible, both Old and New, that riches and wealth are commonly seen as "spiritual" wealth.

Psa 119:72 The law of thy mouth [is] better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.

Psa 119:127 Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold.

Pro 20:15 There is gold, and a multitude of rubies: but the lips of knowledge [are] a precious jewel.

Do you have any response to the fact that Ellen White sees Jesus as referring to material wealth? I don't understand how you could simply say "excellent" when her view is more in line with kauffmannphillips.

While I greatly admire and respect the teachings and writing of EGW I am not one who necessarily sees her commentary as the final word on anything. And yet, at the same time in her book Christ's Object Lessons Mrs. White goes into much greater detail and in fact delves into the more "spiritual" nature of the parable of the unjust steward.

“Friends by the Mammon of Unrighteousness”

In regards to Matthew Henry, I don't think there is anyone who disputes that Jesus is speaking of spiritual riches to be gained.

Which has always been my point.

If you read more of Henry's commentary (in regards to these verses) he repeatedly says that Jesus was speaking about how we handle material wealth in this world as well.

No doubt, and I am not discounting this view. I'm just pointing out that I believe there is some very deep theological positions to be uncovered in Luke 16 and that a "literal" view, while helpful, is insufficient in uncovering these spiritual nuggets.

[RND]

Just because the Bereans consulted their scriptures doesn't mean that their methodology or their conclusions were sound. Biblical interpreters of that era could be too innovative in their treatments of the text, e.g., Philo, Dead Sea pesharim, the epistle of Barnabas.

Considering the flattering nature in which Paul speaks of the Bereans I would suggest that your point is off the mark.

The issue is not what meanings a verse or passage can have, it's what meaning(s) it was intended to have in its context. Verses and passages can have meanings they were never intended to, when wrested out of context.

[/quote]

In "context" in can see most of the Gospels having "several" useful meanings, certainly not just one.

Sure, your Baptist minister could have been gnostic. The disease crops up in various traditions. One symptom here is your diction: the true nuggets. For gnostics, their "special knowledge" supersedes the plain sense of the text, to the point of denigrating it.

Man, you are something else! My Baptist minister was no Gnostic and was in fact a very interesting teacher. Equating my remark regarding "true nuggets" as a "symptom of Gnosticism is purely self-delusional. Instead of trying to win a battle of "oneupmanship" how about addressing the actual arguments being made? You sound bitter.

RND wrote:
I wonder if Matthew Henry went to "Gnostic" schools!

I hear Kevin Garnett said "Anything's possible."

Very funny but I sincerely doubt it based on the relevance of the body of his work.

[SteveF]

RND, I was not trying to convice you of anything. I was looking for you to exposit these verses in the light of your assertion. I was hoping you might be able to provide me with a different way of seeing these verses. I'm open to learning but you've simply made another asseration with no explanation related to these particular verses.

I realize that Steve and I don't think my answer was contrary to what you were stating. I thought I did provide some explanation regarding Luke 16:13-14 in my comment to you as well. Granted, I didn't go into deep detail because I figured that if you're here you are not a "newbie" regarding scripture and know for yourself the many "spiritual" applications involving scripture, not just the parables.

In relation to my belief that Luke 16 (the entire chapter) is extremely intense in terms of spiritual application I see that in other parts of the Bible, both Old and New, that riches and wealth are commonly seen as "spiritual" wealth.

Psa 119:72 The law of thy mouth [is] better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.

Psa 119:127 Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold.

Pro 20:15 There is gold, and a multitude of rubies: but the lips of knowledge [are] a precious jewel.

RND, I don't dispute the fact that scriptures can be understood in different ways. What I'm wondering is why you would not take the word "money" to be literal in these two particular verses.

Luk 16:14 "The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. "

Luke 16:13 "You cannot serve God and money."

I can also make the assertion that I believe the word "money" is referring to material wealth in these two instances. If you didn't understand why I would see it that way and you wanted to find out why, I think it would be reasonable to ask for an explanation. Since I'm interested to find out why you've drawn a different conclusion (not to mention you're the only one I've ever heard or read that sees it that way), I'd like you to explain how you came to that determination. Also, what do you understand the word "money" to mean in each of the verses? Thanks

[RND]

RND, I don't dispute the fact that scriptures can be understood in different ways. What I'm wondering is why you would not take the word "money" to be literal in these two particular verses.

Luk 16:14 "The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. "

Luke 16:13 "You cannot serve God and money."

It's not that I don't take the word "money" as literal, I do. It's that I take the "meaning and usage" of the word as spiritual in a much deeper sense of the general context of all the parables in Luke 15 and 16.

I'll give you an example. In the parable of the prodigal son, while there are certainly aspects of the story we can maybe take as being literal, it is after all a parable. Placing too much into the literal interpretation I think causes one to miss out on the deep and rich spiritual application of the parable and makes asking questions like, "Who or what do the two brothers represent" or "Who or what does the father represent" much harder to answer. Obviously, in my mind, the Pharisees to whom Jesus was addressing and maybe even some in the crowd would know instantly who the two brothers are and what they represent. How can we see the awesome similarity of verse 21 and the 51st Psalm if we look at just the literal application of this parable?

I can also make the assertion that I believe the word "money" is referring to material wealth in these two instances. If you didn't understand why I would see it that way and you wanted to find out why, I think it would be reasonable to ask for an explanation.

I think I've given one a few times. The general tenor of Luke 15 and 16 is not just left to a "literal" interpretation but these parables, as well as the entire Gospels, go much deeper than that.

Since I'm interested to find out why you've drawn a different conclusion (not to mention you're the only one I've ever heard or read that sees it that way), I'd like you to explain how you came to that determination.

I came to that realization through the thoughtful teaching of my first preacher, a Baptist minister, who demonstrated to me that all scripture has many different meanings depending on which day of the week it happens to be. This is why I can have conversations with veteran pastors and teachers that share with me that they have read a verse and explain an interpretation of what such a verse is saying to them differently than when this particular verse first spoke to them. Scripture is not simply linear but a vibrant picture of different meaning for particular times. Hence, this is the major aspect in which I usually attempt to understand and view scripture in, from the "deeper meaning" or spiritual aspect, and this is where my main interests lie. I love to try and understand things like what exactly did Jesus write in the dust of the Temple porch to cause the crowd to disperse in John 8.

Also, what do you understand the word "money" to mean in each of the verses? Thanks

Wealth personified.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Just because the Bereans consulted their scriptures doesn't mean that their methodology or their conclusions were sound. Biblical interpreters of that era could be too innovative in their treatments of the text, e.g., Philo, Dead Sea pesharim, the epistle of Barnabas.

RND wrote:
Considering the flattering nature in which Paul speaks of the Bereans I would suggest that your point is off the mark.

I am unaware of any place where Paul speaks of the Bereans.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Sure, your Baptist minister could have been gnostic. The disease crops up in various traditions. One symptom here is your diction: the true nuggets. For gnostics, their "special knowledge" supersedes the plain sense of the text, to the point of denigrating it.

RND wrote:
Man, you are something else! My Baptist minister was no Gnostic and was in fact a very interesting teacher. Equating my remark regarding "true nuggets" as a "symptom of Gnosticism is purely self-delusional. Instead of trying to win a battle of "oneupmanship" how about addressing the actual arguments being made? You sound bitter.

Attention to detail, please. I did not capitalize.

This is not simple name-calling. The gnostic dynamic is but one of many that can adversely infect the interpretive activity of an individual or a community; its manifestation is not limited to the ancient heresy with a capital "G." The dynamic can take various forms, but its basic essence is excessive emphasis on special "knowledge," be it real or imagined. In some cases, the dynamic may involve a fascination with little-known understandings, which may be elaborate and/or exotic, and may include a contrived system of symbology. In some cases, the dynamic may involve neglect or even rejection of simple, mundane, and/or conventional understandings.

Many of us have encountered the gnostic dynamic in our modern lives: persons or communities whose religious lives revolve preponderantly around a peculiar point of dogma; persons or communities who uniformly process their theologies through an arcane and/or synthetic filter; and last but not least, persons or communities who believe that one's prospects for the next life are directly dependent upon accuracy of doctrine.

Major problems can develop from this dynamic, including pride and alienation on the personal front. On the methodological front, the dynamic is susceptible to sophistry, and to gross insensitivity toward elements outside of the esoteric nimbus - including boring truths that can be of great actual significance.