-
Posts
-
Mara wrote: A factor to note in many of the parables is the passage of time.Those are brilliant points you bring up Mara. Time is the one talent we are all given, and some need more time than others, like the workers in the vineyard. It’s not about being accepted into God’s kingdom, it’s about the time necessary for people to accept their responsibilities within the kingdom. People need time to learn how to rise above their animal natures in order to do kingdom-work.28:6.9 3. The Import of Time. Time is the one universal endowment of all will creatures; it is the “one talent” intrusted to all intelligent beings. You all have time in which to insure your survival; and time is fatally squandered only when it is buried in neglect, when you fail so to utilize it as to make certain the survival of your soul. Failure to improve one’s time to the fullest extent possible does not impose fatal penalties; it merely retards the pilgrim of time in his journey of ascent. If survival is gained, all other losses can be retrieved.
Hi Bonita,
I’m so glad that you have decided to continue your active participation on the forum despite having been through such a torrid time for quite a while now. You and Bradly in particular, but also several others, have been on the receiving end of some pretty unpleasant accusations and I just want to let you know that your measured and temperate responses have been an inspiration to me and I’m sure many others. Unfortunately we can’t indicate that we “like” a post with the new website software but I want you and other regular posters to know that your amazing collective insight into the Revelation and your willingness to share it with the rest of us is very much appreciated. Please don’t stop this very valuable service you perform for the benefit of the world wide readership.
Thank you Julian. But I can’t take any credit for being temperate. It takes almost no self-discipline at all to hit the delete button. Ignorance is bliss, so they say.
As for valuable service to the world-wide readership, I think what is valuable is the conversation. Without the exchange of ideas from a variety of people, this forum is pretty much useless to me. Posting quotes alone without friendly exploration of meaning among one’s peers makes it dull, in my opinion. I can read quotes out of the book, alone in my room, and get the same result.
The best thing that happened during this trolling adventure is that more people emerged from their comfort zone and began to engage in conversation. That is such a blessing, I cannot tell you. So, in the end, trolling had its benefits . . . if we can only maintain the same level of interest without a troll???
The best thing that happened during this trolling adventure is that more people emerged from their comfort zone and began to engage in conversation. That is such a blessing, I cannot tell you. So, in the end, trolling had its benefits . . . if we can only maintain the same level of interest without a troll???
While this is still yet a small community….so many individually chose to stand up directly in the line of fire to accept abuse in the form of community….none were spared and none retreated. I too am most grateful and comforted and impressed by those here who find ways to share and care without sacrificing diversity of experience and perspective.
I gain so much by the viewing angle of each God believer and especially those that are fellow students of the Revelation’s presentations of fact and truth. To me it is similar to triangulation or a focus upon something that each angle of view adds dimension and clarity to that being viewed by the each….a potential aggregation of data points which may be added to any individual context or viewing point. We know the Supreme utilizes this form of reality experience to form a universal aggregation of truth realizations and I think that “pattern” can be extended right down to planetary mortals. That is that experiences and perspectives can be “shared” in important ways. While no one may give truth to another for its personalization and realization, yet it can be shared by those are brought together by some intersection of time and space and being.
This site and community offers such potential to those who seek out that which can be shared and experienced together. It is not always possible for me to truly ascertain another’s perspective or appreciate it the way I might if more mature and spiritized, but it does often happen and contributes to my own understanding and appreciation of truth, beauty, and goodness in meaningful ways I cannot really describe. There is a wisdom and reality perspective that is potential in any group of sincere believers (or even secular team members) that is more than the sum of the individual views or wisdom or experience, which contributes to that group wisdom which is some form of integration of an aggregation which would require another agency to manifest….the spirit circuitry that each group member is connected to is also connected to itself in this circuit. I look forward to someone saying this in English rather than gibberish….hahaha!!
Geez Brad . . . as go the parts, so goes the whole.
Anyway, did anyone notice that even though the parable of the talents and the parable of the pounds are very similar, they were meant for two different audiences. The parable of the talents was intended for all disciples, whereas the parable of the pounds was exclusively for the apostles. (171:8.2) I think the differences are apparent when examining the beginning of each parable:
171:8.4 And now, as the rejected nobleman of this parable, I would call before me my twelve servants, special stewards, and giving into each of your hands the sum of one pound, I would admonish each to heed well my instructions that you trade diligently with your trust fund while I am away that you may have wherewith to justify your stewardship when I return, when a reckoning shall be required of you.
176:3.4 As individuals, and as a generation of believers, hear me while I speak a parable: There was a certain great man who, before starting out on a long journey to another country, called all his trusted servants before him and delivered into their hands all his goods. To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one. And so on down through the entire group of honored stewards, to each he intrusted his goods according to their several abilities; and then he set out on his journey.
In the first quote above, the parable for the apostles, there are twelve servants who all get the same amount, one pound regardless of their abilities. In the second parable, meant for the disciples, the master called ALL his servants, not just the twelve. In this parable he gave them differing amounts of talents according to their abilities.
Is this obvious? No feedback here, so I’m clueless how to proceed.
I am not sure the different audiences matter so much as the lesson/message is different for each parable. The one is about the equality of each by the gifts and endowments of mind, free will, personality, spirit connectivity, and time. The second is a recognition of the individuality of wisdom and experience and character and our unique set of skills and qualities that offer their own potentials in service.
We are “measured” on a sliding scale that recognizes these individual differences….the twins were measured differently than James and he differently from all the others, according to utilization of talents.
Bradly wrote: We are “measured” on a sliding scale that recognizes these individual differences….the twins were measured differently than James and he differently from all the others, according to utilization of talents.By talents do you mean a unit of currency or natural aptitude?
The apostles received pounds, all the same amount regardless of their aptitude level. This tells me that the pound and the talent do not symbolize the exact same thing. There is something different about the pound. Later on Nathaniel summed up the two parables (171:8.10-13). He mentioned something about opportunity. I think the apostles had greater opportunities than disciples, and perhaps that is the difference between the pound and the talent. All twelve had the same opportunity to learn from the Master. Only one refused to learn and he had everything taken away from him. Just one angle on this. Interested in hearing if there are others.
Incidentally, the pound parable is about Archelaus. I was wondering if I should give some historical background about that character? I have tons of books full of information that I find interesting, but I don’t know if anyone else cares as much as I do.
I forgot to include this other information. If anyone is interested in the Bible versions of these two parables, the Parable of the Talents is in Matt 25:14-30. The Parable of the Pounds, also known as the Parable of the Ten Minas; it is in Luke 19:11-27. There are differences in each of those presentations as well.
For those who are interested (from biblestudy.org):
- 1 mina = 50 shekels
- 1 pound = 100 shekels
- 1 talent = 3,000 shekels
- 1 shekel = 16 grams of silver = $8.48 U.S.
Bonita wrote: . . .the Parable of the Talents is in Matt 25:14-30. The Parable of the Pounds. . . .I, too, was curious about the value of and the comparisons between talents and pounds in the time of Jesus. The value of a talent varied according to cultures across the region. Wikipedia provides this info on what a talent is, but of course I cannot verify it.A talent (Ancient Greek τάλαντον, talanton ‘scale’ and ‘balance’) was a unit of weight of approximately 80 pounds (36 kg), and when used as a unit of money, was valued for that weight of silver.<sup id=”cite_ref-11″ class=”reference”>[11] As a unit of currency, a talent was worth about 6,000 denarii.<sup id=”cite_ref-Hultgren_1-2″ class=”reference”>[1] Since a denarius was the usual payment for a day’s labour,<sup id=”cite_ref-Hultgren_1-3″ class=”reference”>[1] the value of a talent was about twenty years of labour, by an ordinary person.<sup id=”cite_ref-12″ class=”reference”>[12] By contemporary standards (ca. AD 2009) at the rate of the US minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, the value of a talent would be approximately $300,000 over 20 years, while, at the median yearly wage of $26,363, a talent would be valued at about $500,000.<sup id=”cite_ref-13″ class=”reference”>[13]A pound is one thirtieth of a talent – way less than a talent.Bonita wrote: Incidentally, the pound parable is about Archelaus.Yes, if you would tell us about Archelaus, it would be helpful. Thanks.I’m freaking out. I just spent an hour writing a lengthy explanation about Archelaus and when I hit the submit button it disappeared because I was booted off this forum without warning. Apparently clicking the button that says keep me logged in is meaningless. I’m so upset. Why is this happening? It’s not the first time. I’ve lost all of my work and I’m not going to repeat it now because I have other things to do. Can you please do something about the problem. PLEASE! MAKE IT SO WHEN YOU CLICK THE “KEEP ME LOGGED IN BUTTON” IT ACTUALLY DOES WHAT IT SAYS.
Also, the other forums have an autosave feature. Why can’t we have that too? Or do we and I just can’t find it. So frustrated . . .
Mara wrote: Yes, if you would tell us about Archelaus, it would be helpful. Thanks.Okay, here’s my second stab at it. Not as good, but I’m in the middle of a conniption and also in a hurry, a bad combination.
Archelaus was the favorite son of Herod the Great and his fourth wife, who also gave birth to Herod Antipas. He was born in 25 B.C. and died sometime before 18 A.D.. Archelaus was much like Herod the Great, inheriting his power-hungry ruthlessness. Herod Antipas was more well liked, being more of a builder, also like his father. (inherited character traits)
When Herod the Great died he left several wills. His last testament named Archelaus as king and his brothers as tetrarchs. This did not sit well with the brothers, who along with their sister Salome, protested Archelaus’ kingship. So too, did the Jewish aristocracy (Saducees) believe that they had rights to kingship; not to mention, many messianic Jewish sects all claiming lineage to David’s throne. It was a big contentious mess, so all of the parties decided to travel to Rome to plead their case before Emperor Augustus in 4 A.D..
Herod actually was not of royal blood, although he thought he was entitled to it, and so he taught his sons that they were part of a great Herodian dynasty. Meanwhile the Jews held onto a belief in a return to the royal dynasty of the House of David. Augustus was not interested in allowing any royal dynasty to rule the area, in that it was too vital to trade and travel. Incidentally, recall that up to this time Jesus and his family were living in Egypt.
Meanwhile, during the negotiations in Rome, the Pharisees in Jerusalem, who objected to the imperious conduct of the Herodians, staged a riot in the Temple. Roman armies were sent from Syria to quell the outbreak. Then, not soon after returning to Syria, another rebellion broke out in the Galilee, a hot bed of zealot messianism. A rebel named Judas the Galilean, claiming to be a messianic ruler, stormed Seppharis and set up headquarters. The Roman army returned from Syria to squelch the rebellion, and in the process nearly destroyed the city of Sepphoris. Recall that Sepphoris is only three miles from Nazareth. It is where both Joseph and Jesus worked in the rebuilding phase under Herod Antipas. It is also where Joseph died leading to Jesus referring to Herod Antipas as “that fox”, when denied his father’s back pay.
With all the outbreaks in the area, Augustus made his decision to honor Herod the Great’s last testament but altered it by denying Archelaus the right to kingship. He named him ethnarch, or ruler, which stripped him of his royal power. The plan was to eventually grant Archelaus kingship if he proved to be an effective ruler. The other brothers were named tetrarchs. Archelaus was given the territory of Judea, which includes Jerusalem, and Samaria. Herod Antipas was given the territories of the Galilee and Perea. Recall that this is the time when Joseph was planning on moving his family out of Egypt. Mary wanted to move to Jerusalem but Joseph objected because he feared that Archelaus was too much like Herod the Great. He felt more comfortable with Herod Antipas in the Galilee, thus returning to Nazreth instead.
123:0.5 Mary had never fully given up the idea that Jesus ought to grow up in Bethlehem, the City of David. Joseph did not really believe that their son was to become a kingly deliverer of Israel. Besides, he knew that he himself was not really a descendant of David; that his being reckoned among the offspring of David was due to the adoption of one of his ancestors into the Davidic line of descent. Mary, of course, thought the City of David the most appropriate place in which the new candidate for David’s throne could be reared, but Joseph preferred to take chances with Herod Antipas rather than with his brother Archelaus. He entertained great fears for the child’s safety in Bethlehem or in any other city in Judea, and surmised that Archelauswould be more likely to pursue the menacing policies of his father, Herod, than would Antipas in Galilee. And besides all these reasons, Joseph was outspoken in his preference for Galilee as a better place in which to rear and educate the child, but it required three weeks to overcome Mary’s objections.
But things did not go well for Archelaus in Judea. In Jerusalem, the Saducees hated him for deposing two priests. That and other factors led to a counter rebellion in 6 A.D.. The upper classes of both Judea and Samaria sent a new delegation to Rome to lodge a complaint against Archelaus and express their desire to be rid of the House of Herod, and instead, be subject directly to Augustus. Since Archelaus’ pending kingship was at stake, he also hastened off to Rome to defend his possessions.
Augustus was not amused by it all. He immediately confiscated all of Archelaus’ property and territory, exiling him to Vienna in Gaul (modern Vienne on the Rhone south of Lyons) where he died around 18 A.D.. Augustus then turned all of Archelaus’ territories into his personal protectorate, appointing a Princeps as his representative. The succession of Princeps in Judea were as follows: Coponius; Marcus Ambivulus; Annius Rufus; Valerius Gratus; Pontius Pilate.
It was in the year following this episode, 7 A.D., that Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Jerusalem for his bar mitzvah. With the absence of Archelaus they felt comfortable traveling there. One has to wonder what might have happened if Archelaus had not been deposed.
124:6.2 he much-dreaded Archelaus had been deposed, and they had little to fear in taking Jesus to Jerusalem. Twelve years had passed since the first Herod had sought to destroy the babe of Bethlehem, and no one would now think of associating that affair with this obscure lad of Nazareth.
This brings us to the Parable of the Pounds where Jesus begins the story by comparing himself to Archelaus by saying: “And now, as the rejected nobleman of this parable, I would call before me my twelve servants, . . . (171:8.4)”
Like Archelaus, he would be rejected by the Saducees in Jerusalem and have his rulership denied. Jesus explains:
171:8.3 Do you not remember about a certain prince who went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, but even before he could return, the citizens of his province, who in their hearts had already rejected him, sent an embassy after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us’? As this king was rejected in the temporal rule, so is the Son of Man to be rejected in the spiritual rule.
So that’s all I can remember of what I wrote. Hope it is clear enough since I rewrote it in a hurry. Probably left some stuff out . . . dunno
Wow Bonita! That really adds dimension to the parable of the pounds which was spoken more exclusively to the apostles. The historical figure, Archelaus, really come to life in your recital. In the parable of the pounds Jesus says he’s the rejected nobleman of this parable:
171:8:4 “And now, as the rejected nobleman of this parable, I would call before me my twelve servants, special stewards, and giving into each of your hands the sum of one pound, I would admonish each to heed well my instructions that you trade diligently with your trust fund while I am away that you may have wherewith to justify your stewardship when I return, when a reckoning shall be required of you.”And then he goes on the say something that really caught my eye in the next paragraph:171:8:5 “And even if this rejected Son should not return, another Son will be sent to receive this kingdom, and this Son will then send for all of you to receive your report of stewardship and to be made glad by your gains.”What do you suppose Jesus meant/means when he uttered, “And even if this rejected Son should not return, another Son will be sent to receive this kingdom. . . .”? Who do you suppose is this other Son of whom he speaks?Thanks Bonita!! I have learned to ALWAYS “copy” my words before hitting the “Submit” button as I have also lost my very best posts I ever wrote (hahahahahaha!) – I about threw a laptop once. Very frustrating. Must admit the same has happened other places but am hopeful the site wizard might bring some stabilizing tools here. Another site has a “save draft” feature I really like and won’t post a new reply if someone else replied while I am writing my reply until I read the new post and hit submit a second time….keeps the threads more responsive and sequential that way. So sorry you lost your work but I love the story and scholarship and linkage….
What do you suppose Jesus meant/means when he uttered, “And even if this rejected Son should not return, another Son will be sent to receive this kingdom. . . .”? Who do you suppose is this other Son of whom he speaks?
Probably a Magisterial Son or a Trinity Teacher Son. That’s my best guess.
Glad you all liked the rewrite. I liked my first draft better. And the thing is, I usually do copy my post before submitting, but in haste didn’t this time. What I want to know is why would I get booted off when I’m supposed to be logged in? Is there a default time set even for those who check the box? If so, I think we should know what it is, or at least get some warning that we’re about to be logged off. Right now it seems arbitrary.
Thanks for your commiseration Brad. I’m working out my frustration by cooking . . . just made a shrimp, mushroom, spinach pizza and started on cashew chicken. Probably will make cod fillets with mushroom sauce, roasted cauliflower soup and broiled asparagus with mascarpone sauce before I’m over my snit-fit. I’ll dirty every single pan and dish in the kitchen and then stay up most the night complaining about that too. It’s a character flaw.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.